Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that focuses on eliminating online fraud and identity theft that is facilitated through the use of phishing schemes, as well as deceptive and misleading domain names. Phishing is a method of online identity theft that takes the form of fraudulent e-mails or fake Web sites in order to deceive the recipient into giving personal or financial account information. In addition to victimizing unsuspecting consumers, phishing scams maliciously exploit the trust that legitimate businesses have worked so hard to establish with consumers. The Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 would prohibit the practice of phishing--the deceptive solicitation of a consumer's personal information through the use of e-mails, instant messages, and misleading Web sites that trick recipients into divulging their information to identity thieves. The legislation would also prohibit related abuses, such as the practice of using fraudulent or misleading domain names, by defining them as deceptive practices under the FTC Act. Additionally, the legislation seeks to solidify the integrity of domain name registration, a longtime goal for the Federal Trade Commission, by making it illegal for a domain name registrant to provide false or misleading identifying contact information in a WHOIS database when registering a domain name. Too often law enforcement officials have been hindered in their pursuit of phishers and other online scams because the person responsible is hiding behind the anonymity of false registration information--this legislation would put an end to that practice by requiring accurate registration information about those that own Web sites and domain names that are used to harm consumers. The reason it is imperative to address this through legislation is because online fraud and, more specifically, phishing scams are running rampant. A December 2007 New York Times article reported that more than 3.5 million Americans lost money to phishing schemes and online identity theft over a 12-month period ending in August 2007--this is a 57-percent increase over the previous year. The total amount lost by the victims, $3.2 billion dollars. The Anti-Phishing Working Group found, in November 2007, that 178 corporate identities and brands were hijacked and used for phishing scams, which is the highest number ever reported. All of these figures are very disconcerting and will only increase if we don't put greater effort on curtailing this online fraud. Phishing and other forms of identity theft continue to have a detrimental effect on e-commerce by eroding consumers' confidence in online transactions. According to a 2007 Javelin Strategy & Research study, 80 percent of Internet users are concerned about being victims of online identity theft. What is more, a 2006 Zogby Interactive poll found that 78 percent of small business owners polled stated that a less reliable Internet would damage their business. While consumer confidence is critical in any commerce activity, it is paramount for online transactions. Phishing and other online fraud activities directly undermine that vital trust. Phishing schemes aren't just isolated to individuals and e-commerce. Companies, organizations, and government agencies are also targets. A form of phishing known as spear phishing targets these entities to gain unauthorized access to the organization's computer system in order to steal financial information, trade secrets, or even top-secret military information. The security risks that phishing poses in the world of cyberterrorism is very significant. But one doesn't have to look to some distant country to find the origin of traditional phishing schemes. The United States only until recently was consistently the top country that hosted the most phishing Web sites. While China now holds that claim, the United States is a very close second--hosting approximately 24 percent of phishing Web sites. So we can definitively do more within our borders to make the Internet notably safer. Since President Bush signed the stimulus package into law earlier this month, millions of Americans will be expecting to receive tax rebate checks this May. But before those checks arrive, taxpayers should also expect to be targets of numerous phishing schemes between now and then. Many of these scams involve official-looking e-mail messages that try to trick the recipient into entering their personal information at a fake IRS Web site by stating in the e-mail that they are eligible for a refund check. This is not the first time the IRS identity has been misused for phishing scams, and it will continue if we don't do more to go after phishers. And this is what the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 does. It looks to make the Internet safer and more reliable. It also facilitates the restoration of trust and consumer confidence that has been eroded by the prevalence of deceptive e-mails and Web sites, which has, in part, mired the Internet from achieving its full potential. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senators Bill Nelson, Stevens, and me in supporting the critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as today is Valentine's Day--a day when everyone deserves to enjoy at least a little chocolate--I commend a small chocolatier from my home State of Maine that has produced quality chocolates and candies for nearly a century. Haven's Candies of Westbrook is an innovative candy factory that sells a wide variety of chocolate favorites in addition to both traditional and original Maine treats. The early history of Haven's Candies has an element of romance to it. Herbert Haven, the company's founder, followed his sweetheart from Boston, MA, to Portland, ME, in the early 1900s. They were soon married, and Herbert, who was the son of a candy maker, teamed up with his wife to produce handcrafted candies in their kitchen, which they began selling from the front parlor of their house in 1915. From this humble start, Haven's Candies has grown to become a well-known name in candy making. The company now has a factory and store in Westbrook, as well as retail locations in Windham and Portland, one block from the house where Haven's began. And as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am particularly pleased that the U.S. Small Business Administration has been able to help Haven's over the years through financing and other assistance. Using time-tested methods, Haven's still handcrafts its candies. Haven's offers customers an extensive array of exquisite goods, including homemade fudge, marzipan, jumbo peanut butter cups, and buttercrunch toffee. The company also produces a varied selection of sugar-free candies, including peanut brittle and cashew turtles. Some of the Maine-themed candies sold at Haven's include the needham, a chocolate with a soft potato, coconut, and vanilla center, and delicious blueberry creams, celebrating Maine's rich heritage of blueberry harvesting. Perhaps Haven's most impressive production is its salt water taffy. Made by hand, its dozens of unique flavors include creamsicle, maple, and watermelon. Haven's salt water taffy has attracted significant attention, and retailers of the candy include Maine's own L. L. Bean. Haven's production methods allow for the romantic in all of us to surprise our sweethearts any day of the week. The company can make monogrammed chocolates and offers personalized packaging to create anyone's favorite combination of sweets. For Valentine's Day, Haven's offers chocolate-dipped strawberries, fancy hearts filled with a mix of chocolates, and the unique Valentine party tray, which includes a great variety of chocolates surrounding a heart-shaped tray filled with mixed nuts. Haven's also makes assorted holiday gifts for other occasions, including Easter and Father's Day. The company holds a free open house every Columbus Day when children can make their own candy at the factory. Additionally, Haven's raises funds annually for the Center for Grieving Children by hosting ``make your own candy cane'' events. On Valentine's Day, we take the opportunity to enjoy the sweeter side of life. Luckily for the employees of Haven's Candies, they get to enjoy it every day! Not only is the candy they produce scrumptious, but their work ethic is exemplary, and their dedication to putting smiles on the faces of children of all ages is commendable. I congratulate owner Andy Charles and everyone at Haven's who continue to make delectable candies nearly 100 years after this company's remarkable inception and wish them future success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution directing the U.S. to undertake bilateral discussions with Canada to negotiate an agreement to conserve endangered large whales that migrate along the Atlantic seaboard of North America. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Senators Collins and Sununu for their cosponsorship. Whales do not recognize international boundaries, and it is critical that we work with our neighbors to develop consistent means to protect whales from potentially harmful interactions with fishing gear, ships, and other manmade threats. Both the U.S. and Canada have taken steps to reduce the impacts of their respective maritime industries on endangered whale populations, but neither country can provide adequate protection working independently of the other. Large whales, including critically endangered north Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and fin whales, migrate throughout the north Atlantic Ocean, crossing frequently between Canadian and U.S. waters where fishermen on both sides of the boundary employ fishing methods that pose a risk of entanglement, and transiting ships have been known to strike the cetaceans, resulting in serious injury or death. The U.S. has long been a global leader in marine mammal protection. The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, developed under the auspices of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, carries a mandate to reduce incidents of whale entanglement with fishing gear and of ship strikes, and it has issued numerous regulations aimed at achieving its goals. Unfortunately, many of its regulations on the U.S. fishing industry have not been matched by their management counterparts north of the border. Most recently, in October of this year, NMFS issued new regulations, including a mandate for lobster fishermen to use sinking rope to connect their strings of lobster pots. The intent of this rule is to reduce the amount of rope in the water column and thus the risk of a whale becoming entangled. Traditionally, lobstermen have fished using floating rope because in the strong tides and rocky sea floor we experience in many areas off the coast of Maine, sinking rope can chaff, abrade, and break quite easily. These rules, which are due to take effect in October of this year will increase fishermen's overhead cost by requiring more frequent replacement of degraded rope, and pose a safety hazard for our lobstermen. Canadian fishermen experience no similar restrictions on their gear, thereby reducing their overhead costs relative to U.S. fishermen. This not only gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace, but also provides no benefit to the endangered species of whales our lobstermen are making sacrifices to protect. Canada should be praised, however, for its efforts to implement regulations on its shipping industry, including imposing speed limits in areas whales are known to frequent. NMFS's Take Reduction Team has developed similar regulations for shippers transiting areas of U.S. waters, and NMFS sent its final rule to the Office of Management and Budget nearly 1 year ago, but to date, that office has failed to release it. I find it inexcusable that the administration finds it acceptable to impose harsh restrictions on the lobster industry, which is comprised of hardworking small businessmen struggling to make ends meet, but refuses to impose restrictions on a multi-billion dollar industry. This despite the fact that the cost of the ship strike rules, expressed as a percentage of the affected industry's total earnings, will be a fraction of the cost of the gear restrictions. This inequity is exacerbated by the fact that since 2001, nearly three times more whales have been confirmed killed by ship strikes than by entanglement in fishing gear. I expect that this resolution will serve to spur productive conversations between the U.S. and Canada that will ultimately lead to development of bilateral whale protection measures. By agreeing to equal protection measures in U.S. and Canadian waters, we can not only guarantee more comprehensive protection for endangered whales, but also a fair distribution of cost to affected industries and a level playing field for both U.S. and Canadian products.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Dole, to introduce the Small Business Women's Procurement Improvement Act, a measure that would enhance the Small Business Administration's women's procurement program, which was created back in 2000, to provide contracting opportunities to women-owned small businesses in Maine and across the Nation. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my top priorities is to champion our nation's women-owned small businesses and to promote their interests. In these uncertain economic times it is our financial strengths that we must rely upon most. Women-owned small businesses are one such strength. In recent years, the percent growth in the number of women-owned firms was nearly twice that of all U.S. firms. Thus, we need to create programs that will continue to grow this vital and crucial resource. Regrettably, the Small Business Administration, SBA, has failed to implement the women's procurement program that was enacted into law back in 2000. In December, the SBA finally proposed a rule to implement the program. The SBA had the opportunity to hit a home run, but instead published a rule that is highly deficient and unlikely to have any practical effect in helping the Federal Government satisfy its 5 percent women's contracting goal. So far, there has been one law-- enacted back in December 2000--three reports, numerous hearings, and two proposed rules, and, tragically, it appears that we are no closer today then we were 7 years ago to helping our nation's small women- owned businesses stimulate our economy. What an inconceivable missed opportunity for the SBA to help boost our economy by promoting women- owned businesses. The SBA's proposed rule has two fundamental flaws which hinder it from functioning as Congress originally intended. First, the proposed rule identifies just four industries, out of more than one hundred, in which women-owned small businesses are under-represented and eligible for set-asides. According to the Central Contractor Registration, this gross disparity means a mere 1,238 businesses across the entire Nation--or 2 percent of all women-owned small business contractors-- would be subject to the proposed rule. Regrettably, only two of these contractors are located in my home State of Maine. Second, for SBA's proposed rule to go into effect, individual Federal agencies must first publicly admit to a history of gender discrimination. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to envision a scenario where a Federal agency would make such an admission. Furthermore, such an unworkable admission isn't required anywhere in the Small Business Act. To help remedy this appalling circumstance, today we introduce legislation to amend the Small Business Act so that the women-owned small businesses can finally have a procurement program that makes a real difference, not a 2 percent difference. For example, our bill would substantially broaden the range of applicable business industries for women across this Nation and take down the unnecessary barriers it has recently proposed. Women-owned small businesses deserve more than 2 percent of available business industries. These four industries will do little to nothing to help Federal agencies reach its statutory government-wide goal. Sadly enough, one of the industries the SBA has selected does not allow for any private business participation, let alone women business participation. Our bill also would preclude the SBA from promulgating a final rule that requires individual agencies to admit to past discrimination as a prerequisite for participation in the set-aside program. We find it difficult to envision a circumstance in which any agency would make such an admission. Furthermore, this requirement is not mandated anywhere in the Small Business Act. Our bill has gained the support of women-owned small businesses across the Nation including major women's organizations like the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Women Impacting Public Policy, the National Women Business Owners Corporation, the Women Presidents' Organization, the Women Presidents' Educational Organization, and the Women's Business Development Center. It has been nearly 14 years since the women's 5 percent government- wide contracting goal was established in 1994, but since its enactment, the women's contracting goal has never been met. Shockingly, at the historical percentage rate of increase, it would take until 2019 for this goal to be met--25 years after enactment of the original statutory requirement. According to recent figures, women-owned firms in the U.S. generate $1.1 trillion in annual sales and employ 7.2 million people nationwide. I take great pride that my own state of Maine is a forerunner for women-owned businesses with more than 63,000 women-owned firms, creating 75,000 jobs, and spurring more than $9 billion in sales. The SBA must develop a functioning procurement program that will cultivate women business so that they in turn can help grow our Nation's economy. This is why women businesses need a workable procurement program that does not create impenetrable barriers and provide so few business opportunities. Our bill eliminates these barriers and gives women-owned small business a tool they can use that will help them continue to grow our suffering economy. If ever there were a time to secure new avenues to generate revenue and spur the economy, wouldn't that time be now? I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this vital legislation, so that we in Congress can make sure that the SBA publishes a meaningful final rule that will assist the Federal Government to satisfy--if not exceed--its government-wide contracting goal, and to help women-owned small businesses to stimulate our Nation's economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would better facilitate the DTV transition for rural Americans by making funds for digital upgrades available sooner to low-power television stations and translators. The reason this is imperative is that we don't want to create another ``digital divide'' where rural and low-income areas are not able to reap the benefits of digital TV as quickly as their urban counterparts. Under the current statute, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce must make payments for the low-power TV and translator upgrade program during fiscal year 2009--October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009--but may not actually disburse reimbursement payments until after October 1, 2010, which is 20 months past the DTV transition deadline of February 2009. By having such a long delay for reimbursements, it will inevitably hold up the analog to digital upgrades of low-power TV stations and translators. This would adversely affect viewers since they will not be able to receive the benefits that digital signals offer and hence create this additional ``digital divide'' to these mostly rural and low-income areas where low-power TV and translators typically are situated. This bill would correct this oversight and change the language to have the Assistant Secretary make payments during the fiscal years 2009 to 2012, and start providing reimbursements for the upgrade program on February 18, 2009, and in doing so will move up the date 20 months to bring the upgrade program more in line with the main deadline of the DTV transition. This will allow LPTV and translators to be reimbursed more quickly for analog to digital equipment upgrades, which can run in the tens of thousands of dollars. As we all know, in less than 380 days, on February 17, 2009, television broadcasts will transition from analog TV signals to an all- digital system and in doing so begin a new chapter of innovation and viewing experience. The transition will free up scarce broadcast spectrum so that first responders and public safety services have much needed spectrum capacity. It will also provide space for advanced wireless technologies, which will bring us improved broadband and communications services. In addition, the new digital TV signals will provide higher quality video and sound, as well as the opportunity for broadcasters to offer new services such as interactive TV and multicasting, which allows the transmission of several program streams on one broadcast channel. Consumer awareness of the DTV transition is improving and the Commerce Department announced earlier this month that it had already received requests from more than 2 million households for nearly 4 million converter box coupons--so demand is strong. More and more consumers are realizing the importance and benefits of the DTV transition. We must not unduly prohibit any American from not reaping the tremendous advantages of digital TV and other services that will quickly follow due to the transition. If we don't correct this critical oversight in the current law, we will do just that, once again disadvantaging the areas and people that have the most to gain from this new technology. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation. Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would better facilitate the DTV transition for rural Americans by making funds for digital upgrades available sooner to low-power television stations and translators. The reason this is imperative is that we don't want to create another ``digital divide'' where rural and low-income areas are not able to reap the benefits of digital TV as quickly as their urban counterparts. Under the current statute, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce must make payments for the low-power TV and translator upgrade program during fiscal year 2009--October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009--but may not actually disburse reimbursement payments until after October 1, 2010, which is 20 months past the DTV transition deadline of February 2009. By having such a long delay for reimbursements, it will inevitably hold up the analog to digital upgrades of low-power TV stations and translators. This would adversely affect viewers since they will not be able to receive the benefits that digital signals offer and hence create this additional ``digital divide'' to these mostly rural and low-income areas where low-power TV and translators typically are situated. This bill would correct this oversight and change the language to have the Assistant Secretary make payments during the fiscal years 2009 to 2012, and start providing reimbursements for the upgrade program on February 18, 2009, and in doing so will move up the date 20 months to bring the upgrade program more in line with the main deadline of the DTV transition. This will allow LPTV and translators to be reimbursed more quickly for analog to digital equipment upgrades, which can run in the tens of thousands of dollars. As we all know, in less than 380 days, on February 17, 2009, television broadcasts will transition from analog TV signals to an all- digital system and in doing so begin a new chapter of innovation and viewing experience. The transition will free up scarce broadcast spectrum so that first responders and public safety services have much needed spectrum capacity. It will also provide space for advanced wireless technologies, which will bring us improved broadband and communications services. In addition, the new digital TV signals will provide higher quality video and sound, as well as the opportunity for broadcasters to offer new services such as interactive TV and multicasting, which allows the transmission of several program streams on one broadcast channel. Consumer awareness of the DTV transition is improving and the Commerce Department announced earlier this month that it had already received requests from more than 2 million households for nearly 4 million converter box coupons--so demand is strong. More and more consumers are realizing the importance and benefits of the DTV transition. We must not unduly prohibit any American from not reaping the tremendous advantages of digital TV and other services that will quickly follow due to the transition. If we don't correct this critical oversight in the current law, we will do just that, once again disadvantaging the areas and people that have the most to gain from this new technology. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation. Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Dole, to introduce the Small Business Women's Procurement Improvement Act, a measure that would enhance the Small Business Administration's women's procurement program, which was created back in 2000, to provide contracting opportunities to women-owned small businesses in Maine and across the Nation. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my top priorities is to champion our nation's women-owned small businesses and to promote their interests. In these uncertain economic times it is our financial strengths that we must rely upon most. Women-owned small businesses are one such strength. In recent years, the percent growth in the number of women-owned firms was nearly twice that of all U.S. firms. Thus, we need to create programs that will continue to grow this vital and crucial resource. Regrettably, the Small Business Administration, SBA, has failed to implement the women's procurement program that was enacted into law back in 2000. In December, the SBA finally proposed a rule to implement the program. The SBA had the opportunity to hit a home run, but instead published a rule that is highly deficient and unlikely to have any practical effect in helping the Federal Government satisfy its 5 percent women's contracting goal. So far, there has been one law-- enacted back in December 2000--three reports, numerous hearings, and two proposed rules, and, tragically, it appears that we are no closer today then we were 7 years ago to helping our nation's small women- owned businesses stimulate our economy. What an inconceivable missed opportunity for the SBA to help boost our economy by promoting women- owned businesses. The SBA's proposed rule has two fundamental flaws which hinder it from functioning as Congress originally intended. First, the proposed rule identifies just four industries, out of more than one hundred, in which women-owned small businesses are under-represented and eligible for set-asides. According to the Central Contractor Registration, this gross disparity means a mere 1,238 businesses across the entire Nation--or 2 percent of all women-owned small business contractors-- would be subject to the proposed rule. Regrettably, only two of these contractors are located in my home State of Maine. Second, for SBA's proposed rule to go into effect, individual Federal agencies must first publicly admit to a history of gender discrimination. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to envision a scenario where a Federal agency would make such an admission. Furthermore, such an unworkable admission isn't required anywhere in the Small Business Act. To help remedy this appalling circumstance, today we introduce legislation to amend the Small Business Act so that the women-owned small businesses can finally have a procurement program that makes a real difference, not a 2 percent difference. For example, our bill would substantially broaden the range of applicable business industries for women across this Nation and take down the unnecessary barriers it has recently proposed. Women-owned small businesses deserve more than 2 percent of available business industries. These four industries will do little to nothing to help Federal agencies reach its statutory government-wide goal. Sadly enough, one of the industries the SBA has selected does not allow for any private business participation, let alone women business participation. Our bill also would preclude the SBA from promulgating a final rule that requires individual agencies to admit to past discrimination as a prerequisite for participation in the set-aside program. We find it difficult to envision a circumstance in which any agency would make such an admission. Furthermore, this requirement is not mandated anywhere in the Small Business Act. Our bill has gained the support of women-owned small businesses across the Nation including major women's organizations like the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, Women Impacting Public Policy, the National Women Business Owners Corporation, the Women Presidents' Organization, the Women Presidents' Educational Organization, and the Women's Business Development Center. It has been nearly 14 years since the women's 5 percent government- wide contracting goal was established in 1994, but since its enactment, the women's contracting goal has never been met. Shockingly, at the historical percentage rate of increase, it would take until 2019 for this goal to be met--25 years after enactment of the original statutory requirement. According to recent figures, women-owned firms in the U.S. generate $1.1 trillion in annual sales and employ 7.2 million people nationwide. I take great pride that my own state of Maine is a forerunner for women-owned businesses with more than 63,000 women-owned firms, creating 75,000 jobs, and spurring more than $9 billion in sales. The SBA must develop a functioning procurement program that will cultivate women business so that they in turn can help grow our Nation's economy. This is why women businesses need a workable procurement program that does not create impenetrable barriers and provide so few business opportunities. Our bill eliminates these barriers and gives women-owned small business a tool they can use that will help them continue to grow our suffering economy. If ever there were a time to secure new avenues to generate revenue and spur the economy, wouldn't that time be now? I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this vital legislation, so that we in Congress can make sure that the SBA publishes a meaningful final rule that will assist the Federal Government to satisfy--if not exceed--its government-wide contracting goal, and to help women-owned small businesses to stimulate our Nation's economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I commend a Maine business that last month unveiled a remarkably sturdy vessel for use by our Nation's Navy SEALs, a project for which I was honored to secure funding for. Hodgdon Yachts of East Boothbay, a family-owned company for five generations, has been a source of pride for Maine's boatbuilding industry for nearly 200 years, and its recent accomplishment is without a doubt one of its most impressive. Hodgdon Yachts began building boats in 1816, when the company launched the 42-foot schooner Superb. Since then, Hodgdon Yachts has developed a reputation as one of New England's premier shipbuilders, persevering through difficult times and continually reevaluating its company's methods to be consistently on the cutting edge of the latest technologies. Of particular note for the State of Maine is Hodgdon's 1921 schooner Bowdoin, named for the Brunswick alma mater of Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan. The boat proved itself an invaluable tool in Arctic research and sailed more than 300,000 miles over 26 icy voyages in its career. Prior to the Bowdoin, the company turned its attention to building submarine chasers for the military in World War I, and continued its defense work by gaining minesweeper and troop transport contracts during both World War II and the Korean war. By the late 1950s, Hodgdon Yachts returned to building more traditional wooden yachts for a variety of customers. By the mid-1980s, the company began to modernize its shipbuilding, providing clients with yachts of superb quality and strength while employing innovative technology in the creation of its boats. Hodgdon Yachts recently began using carbon Kevlar deposits to construct its yachts to make the boats as strong and secure as possible. Hodgdon's proficiency in using Kevlar proved useful when, in May 2005, the company won a contract from the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research to build the prototype for a new special operations craft using these composites. The ship has a foam core surrounded by multiple layers of carbon, and its durability its reinforced by an outer layer of Kevlar. On January 11, 2008, the company launched this prototype, the 82-foot Mako V.1, named for a shark that frequents the Gulf of Maine's waters. It is the first Navy vessel constructed with carbon- fiber technology and was designed to protect Navy SEALs from injuries caused by the harsh conditions of the seas. Hodgdon teamed up with Maine Marine Manufacturing and the University of Maine in completing the Mako V.1, and I am so proud of the role that each played in supporting our nation's armed forces. I look forward to successful trials by the Navy and the continued role Hodgdon Yachts will play in the production of this fine vessel. Throughout its history, Hodgdon Yachts has produced over 400 yachts and ships, perhaps none more vital than its latest. The company's work to keep shipbuilding alive and well in Maine is well documented, including President Tim Hodgdon's involvement in the formation of Maine Built Boats, an alliance whose goal is to present Maine's boatbuilding industry to a wider global audience. I firmly believe that, given our seafaring history and established work ethic, Mainers build the best ships, and Hodgdon Yachts only further exemplifies this tradition. I commend everyone at Hodgdon Yachts for their remarkable accomplishment in the Mako V.1, and wish them well in their future boatbuilding endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, first of all, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and our ranking member, Senator Grassley, for their combined tireless leadership in advancing a very critical piece of legislation, the stimulus bill that has been passed by the Finance Committee and will be considered by the Senate shortly. I thank them for spearheading such an important initiative in a very timely fashion. It is an issue of critical consequence to the Nation. We know there is a decline in our economy. We are seeing the economic indicators, which I will speak to shortly. There is no doubt that across the board it is absolutely vital that we enact as quickly as possible a stimulus package to begin to address the erosion we have identified and that we have seen in our economy. Again, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for working so quickly to address many of the issues raised on this very comprehensive piece of legislation, understanding that some of the issues that have been raised--even since the time in which the House of Representatives had voted upon their package, they also incorporated many provisions that I think are more targeted and will strengthen the bill that passed in the House of Representatives and the bill that had been negotiated between the House and the President. I do think it is important for the Senate to have the opportunity to have its input on this bill that is going to be so vital to America and to our constituents and to make sure it is as precise and calibrated as possible in order to rejuvenate the economy and, hopefully, to galvanize some of the economic dimensions of our economy that have taken a turn for the worse. It is imperative that we act in a timely fashion. I think changing the package and incorporating those issues that are also essential to build upon the strengths of the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives are not mutually exclusive. We cannot afford to stand idly by as the economy continues to erode. That is why I think there is a collective conclusion that we have to develop a package that can be supported in both the House and Senate and will be signed by the President. The Finance Committee held a number of hearings recently on the question as to whether to even have a stimulus package. I know there is debate on both sides of the political aisle and among economists as to whether it is essential. But the fact is, more than half of the economists surveyed in this country believe there is a recession that is imminent. So, obviously, we have a responsibility to take every possible step and every possible measure that can avert or at least mitigate the impact and the brunt of any recession. Dr. Martin Feldstein, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Reagan, expressed his support for a stimulus plan. Last week, before the Senate Finance Committee, he said: Because of current credit market conditions, there is a risk that interest rate cuts will not be as effective in stimulating the economy as they were in the past. That is why a stimulus measure deserves our attention. It certainly deserves our attention and our informed decisions, in terms of what exactly should be considered in a stimulus package. No doubt, time is of the essence--we all agree on that--in passing a viable and effective piece of legislation. But our obligation, as well, is to be deliberative on one of the issues that is of great consequence to this country. We have to develop the best possible package, building upon the strength of the House measure, and it must be targeted to those who need the support; and we need to rebuild the economy and, hopefully, avert any potential recession. We have to strike the right balance because, obviously, that will be central to averting a recession, avoiding it, as we face a confluence of historic and unprecedented economic indicators that are profoundly troubling. We can anticipate more than $600 billion in resets in the adjustable rate market in the spring, which is, of course, on top of all the resets that have occurred recently. We are experiencing a housing crisis. Recently, the Commerce Department indicated that the drop in home prices is at the lowest since they began keeping records in 1963. Likewise, the price of oil per barrel has now skyrocketed and spiked recently to $100 per barrel. Gasoline is approximately $3 at the pump, and we can anticipate, according to a report even of today, that it may go as high as $3.50 per gallon. The number of long-term unemployed today is nearly twice the rate of the unemployed immediately prior to the recession of 2001 and 2002, when we extended unemployment benefits. So we have seen the long-term unemployment rate jump significantly. We have had an unemployment rate that surged most recently, in the short term, from 4.7 percent to 5 percent in 1 month alone. Obviously, we don't know what to anticipate in future months. That is why it is so critical to have the stimulus package in place. Most troubling is what the Commerce Department indicated yesterday: that a growth in the gross domestic product has slowed to .6 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, for an annualized rate of more than 2.2 percent for 2007. That happens to be the slowest annual rate of growth in 5 years. So there is no question that we must use the fiscal tools at our disposal to mitigate the impact of a slowing economy and, hopefully, avoid any potential recession. One of the economists who appeared before the committee--Dr. Jason Furman of the Brookings Institution--echoed as much when he said that ``a well-designed fiscal stimulus in the form of increased government spending or tax reductions, has the potential to help cushion the economic blow.'' So the package agreed to yesterday in the Finance Committee, in my view, meets this challenge and achieves those goals. It is well- balanced, effective, and it will stimulate the economy through some key provisions that I think are essential, in terms of addressing the problems we are facing. One is the refundable tax rebate, of course; that is, to spur the buying power of all Americans across the board, but most especially low-income and senior consumers, which is important. The House-passed package doesn't include a benefit for senior citizens. It doesn't include the more than 20 million seniors on fixed incomes. They would not benefit from the stimulus package enacted in the House of Representatives. It doesn't include an extension of unemployment benefits which, again, I might add, economists have identified as one of the surest ways to impact the economy. You will have the most affect on spending almost immediately--in fact, some economists have said within 2 months, as opposed to the rebate, by the time it passes the Congress and is signed by the President, but also because of the length of time it takes to distribute it. Even under the most efficient means possible, we will not feel the effect of it until the spring or later midyear. So then it would take a while to really be absorbed into the economy so that an extension of unemployment benefits would become essential and pivotal. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office said it has the greatest amount of cost-effectiveness and the least amount of lag time before it is felt in the economy, it has the maximum amount of impact on the overall economy in terms of its effectiveness, and it has the most certainty about the impact it will have on the economy to spur economic spending. Finally, we have an extension of the energy tax incentives. People say we should not have the energy tax incentives in this legislation. Yet it is interesting to note that it would create more than 100,000 jobs, by industry estimates, by the end of the year--100,000 jobs. The whole goal and focus of this legislation is to create more jobs, and if we know definitively there are provisions that will create more jobs immediately because of pending projects, then doesn't it make sense to include them in this legislation? It will spur economic activity or spur consumption, and it will reduce our dependency on imported oil. Investment incentives for small businesses will also be included in this legislation to work in conjunction with other initiatives through job creation by providing for expensing for small businesses so they can write off more of their capital investments or be able to use the extended carryback of operating losses and extending that period from 2 to 5 years so they can reach back further. They have their choice of incentives, whatever works for a company. They may be in a struggling situation, and they can write off their losses of current years against their profits of past years. It makes sense to put these provisions and incentives in one single package that will help to spur the economy. In addition, of course, is the bonus depreciation as well--another dimension of economic investment that can make a difference in serving as a catalyst in our economy. Finally, in this legislation, we include a provision that was omitted in the House of Representatives package, and that is one that would make sure our disabled veterans benefit from the stimulus package, benefit from the rebates. I thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for initiating this amendment. I joined her in that effort in the Finance Committee because we thought that was a major omission, to exclude more than 250,000 of our Nation's service disabled veterans because their compensation is not taxable. We wanted to make sure they should be able to participate in the stimulus plan. Our disabled veterans deserve to be part of the rebate plan, and this package makes sure that happens. I appreciate my colleagues on the committee who supported this pivotal provision. This legislation casts a wide economic net, and that makes it more equitable, especially to the most vulnerable among us in America. It doesn't merely represent sound economics to propel this stimulus, but it is also in greater alignment with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, who said that a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible in the next 12 months or so. The measure we will be considering and debating does affect the aggregate. It does ensure that its impact is felt as much as possible, and it does so on a more accelerated timetable. The tax rebate incorporated in this legislation is obviously central, and the refundability makes it all the more effective. That is why I was a strong advocate in ensuring that refundability was part of the stimulus package, that it certainly had to be included to make sure the low-income and middle-income Americans and households would have the ability to have the benefits of any rebate because it would also make a difference in stimulating our economy because two-thirds of consumer spending is really what drives our economy. It is the economic engine. We depend on consumer spending to drive our economy. So the refundability portion is very important because it will make sure those people who benefit from this rebate are ones who also need this rebate. They need it to pay for the necessities of daily life, given spiraling costs in terms of oil, food, and gasoline. We want to make sure we can mitigate the impact of this declining economy and the rising costs in their households. When we had various witnesses before the committee, we talked about the effectiveness of the refundable tax rebate. In fact, the Hamilton Project, which was conducted by economists at Brookings Institution, noted that a one-time tax rebate equal to 1 percent of the GDP, which is about $140 billion in today's economy, and directed at households likely to spend money would boost the level of GDP by 1 percent or more for two consecutive quarters, increasing the annualized GDP growth rate by about 4 percent in the first quarter of the effect. So if the aim of this bill is to arm American consumers with additional money to stimulate consumer spending, it is integral that this benefit is extended to the 20 million working families and the 20 million seniors who were omitted from the House bill who are more likely to spend the money that will be included in the stimulus package. The package which is before the Senate which was enacted by the Finance Committee will be absolutely vital to low-income Americans and to seniors who otherwise would not have benefited from the package which was enacted in the House. So, again, the Senate Finance Committee package builds upon the provisions that were incorporated in the House legislation and are strengthened in the package that was marked up in the Senate yesterday. I think it is absolutely critical that we make sure no one is left behind when it comes to benefiting from this rebate that is directed at low-income and middle-income households because they are the ones who are most likely to spend this rebate because of the driving costs of, as I said, oil and food and the daily necessities of life. I also think it is important to extend the unemployment benefits, as I said earlier. The fact remains that the unemployment rate for the long term is twice as high as it was in the recession in 2002. We included extension of unemployment benefits. After all, if the purpose of this package is to put in place the fiscal tools to make sure we can do everything within our power to avert a potential recession, then we have to make sure these tools are absolutely in place to make sure we can avoid a potential decline in our economy that leads to a recession. In my home State alone, the case for an extension is undeniable. As the State department of labor reported, the announced layoffs for February and March are up an unconscionable 75 percent over the layoffs that occurred in December and January. Unemployment is increasing, certainly in my State. We have seen it reflected in the recent numbers. We have no way of knowing the extent to which it will get worse, but we do know by all accounts and certainly by the economic indicators, by the general consensus of economists, that a recession is a potential, that it could potentially be imminent in the short term. So all the more important to put in place a provision to extend unemployment benefits because it will have the maximum effect in our economy to impact direct spending. Also, I think it is important that it will stimulate the economy. In fact, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy said that every dollar spent now on unemployment will result in an infusion in the economy of more than $1.64 cents. So the beneficiaries of this extension certainly will be those who have been unemployed for the long term, who have seen their benefits expire. If they have already exhausted their 26 weeks of benefits, they will have an additional 13 weeks. For those high-unemployment States, which is triggered at 6 percent or more, they will then get an additional 13 weeks of benefits. It would provide an immediate infusion of cash through a very reliable mechanism that is already in place to the people who very likely will spend that money on consumer goods. The fact is that long-term unemployment is twice as high today as it was in 2001 and the 2002 recession at a time when oil was only $25 a barrel, and today we have seen it is almost $100 a barrel. We cannot afford to ignore this potentially dire situation which this long-term unemployment rate poses. That is why I think it is absolutely important that we do everything we can to ensure that a stimulus package includes the extension of unemployment benefits. I also am pleased that we have energy tax incentives, as I said earlier, as well. Energy production tax credits will be extended in the first quarter of this year. By all industry estimates, it is indicated that we could create more than 100,000 jobs. I know in my own State of Maine, with some of the investments that have already been made in wind power, for example, there is more than $1.5 billion worth of projects that are pending, that are waiting for this energy tax credit. We know that in the final analysis, we are going to enact an energy tax credit that will cultivate the renewable sources of energy we need to generate in this country so we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil. What better way to do it than through tax credits. We know they have worked, and we know that later this year we will be considering these energy tax credits to extend them. So why not extend them now if we are certain it is going to create jobs? As I said, by industry accounts, the experts have estimated that more than 100,000 jobs will be created as a result of these tax credits. So it is unquestionable in terms of the benefits economically, it is unquestionable in terms of the benefits to our energy security and our independence, which is inextricably linked to economic security and progress. I do not think anybody in this Chamber can believe that lessening our dependence on oil and lowering its price per barrel, which these approaches will facilitate, will not prove to be an immediate boon to our economy. So these incentives are necessary, in my opinion, because they also address the root causes of our current downturn. I hope, in the final analysis, when we get to the question of a stimulus package, we will also include financing for low-income fuel assistance. Two years ago, I advanced a billion-dollar initiative in increasing financing for low-income fuel assistance. At that time, heating oil was $2.44 a gallon. Today, our families, households are paying an inconceivable, incomprehensible increase of $3.45 a gallon--nearly $3,000 just to get through a winter. The average resident in the State of Maine uses about 850 gallons to 1,000 gallons, so that cost is near $3,000. The eligibility income for low-income fuel assistance is approximately $13,000. It takes more than a quarter of their income to pay for heating their home--more than a quarter of their income, of the $13,000. It is absolutely inconceivable that any family could live on $13,000 and pay more than a quarter of their income toward home heating oil that continues to rise as we speak when we are talking $3.45 a gallon. It is only right we fund this indispensable program. We have provided some increases. It is clear we need to do more, and what better way to stimulate the economy and to ensure households have the benefit of an increase in low-income fuel assistance than providing it as part of the stimulus package, particularly at the time of crisis for households in the cold weather regions of this country. I know there will be an amendment offered at the time we are considering the stimulus package. Finally, I wish to mention as ranking member of the Small Business Committee that there are two vital provisions, as I said earlier, regarding small business expensing and the extending of the carryback period of operating losses from 2 to 5 years. They are critically important initiatives because they certainly will be a great catalyst for the generation of jobs in America. Small businesses are the key to job creation in this country, key to our economy. They are responsible for creating two-thirds of all new jobs in America. They represent 99 percent of all of our employers. They represent half of the employees in this country, so they are pivotal to the success or failure of our economy. The more we can invest in small business, the more we will see the benefits in terms of job creation. That is indisputable by any measurement, by any account; that they are able to create the kind of jobs directly that benefit our economy, benefit the people we represent, and they can make that investment quickly. That is certainly true when it comes to expensing, where they will be able to write off up to $250,000 in this initiative, where they will be able to use bonus depreciation, for example, and other important investments for capital incentives, and also as well for the carryback period, in extending and reaching back to 5 years. Any one of these initiatives or in combination is going to be absolutely vital to helping generate new jobs in our economy and helping to mitigate the downturn in our economy. The gravity and the urgency of our economic situation cannot be overstated, and it unquestionably requires swift and decisive action. So I hope at the time we consider this stimulus package, there will be strong support for the initiative that passed the Senate Finance Committee. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor a small business whose admirable goal is to educate citizens about personal finance. The Institute for Financial Literacy, headquartered in Maine's largest city of Portland, provides a valuable and unique resource for taxpayers and business owners alike--specifically those who have gone through bankruptcy--to better understand their economic situation. Founded in 2002 by Leslie Linfield, the Institute for Financial Literacy has grown exponentially in the past 6 years, and now has a team of 50 employees. The institute employs a multitude of programs and formats to train clients on various issues related to the betterment of financial aptitude. Its Personal Finance Series is a combination of three books that aim to demonstrate the principles of budgeting, credit and debit management, and investment and retirement planning. The company's Web site contains several instrumental tools, including a budget worksheet and a financial goal action plan, free for anyone wishing to monitor their finances closely. The Web site includes several papers on legal matters and money management strategies by the company's employees. Additionally, it offers users the ability to sign up for the institute's electronic newsletter. Above and beyond the invaluable information provided on its Web page, the institute provides critical counseling services to assist those in need of financial advice. In 2007 alone, the institute's employees served over 50,000 individuals throughout the country, helping them make better and more informed decisions about their personal financial decisions. Services for people who have filed for bankruptcy include both pre- and post-filing FreshStart counseling and education programs, all delivered over the Internet, phone, or in person, to give clients the financial management skills and principles necessary to succeed in their future endeavors. To make its employees' expertise available to the largest number of people, the institute is open for 13 hours each weekday with additional hours on Saturdays. Furthermore, the institute partners with nonprofit, educational and governmental organizations to integrate its programs into their existing services. These partners include groups with a notable influence in the realm of financial responsibility, including the ``Save For Your Future'' campaign that urges Americans to develop private individual pensions to supplement their Social Security earnings, and the American Bankruptcy Institute, an organization dedicated to research and education on matters related to insolvency. Similarly, the Institute for Financial Literacy has partnered with local organizations to create programs that help Mainers improve their financial and employment opportunities. In its short history, the Institute for Financial Literacy has already benefited tens of thousands of people struggling to recover from bankruptcy. By developing high-quality, user-friendly financial literacy programs, its educational and counseling assistance renders an enormous boon for those looking to advance in life. I thank Leslie Linfield and all of the institute's employees for their generous help to those in need and applaud them for their dedicated service to producing a more financially sound populace.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the pending legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that was originally passed in 1978. At the outset of my remarks I would like to first express my sincerest appreciation to the chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chair, Senator Bond, for their exceptional leadership in working in a concerted, cooperative manner to shepherd the Intelligence Committee bill through the legislative process in a strong, bipartisan manner. As my colleagues know, the act is set to expire on February 1--less than a week from now. It is imperative that Congress pass legislation reflecting the will of this body and send it to the President's desk for enactment. At a time when al-Qaida lurks in the shadows, making no distinctions between combatants and noncombatants, between our battlefields and our backyards, we as lawmakers must work with firm resolve to ensure that the intelligence community possesses the tools and the legal authority that is required to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil. Yet in the wake of years of controversy surrounding the Terrorist Surveillance Program, we all must be mindful of our duties to uphold the constitutional protections as old as this Republic. I do not believe these goals are mutually exclusive. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly known as FISA, establishes a distinct system of laws and regulations for the Government's ability to legally conduct national security-related surveillance of communications. The Intelligence Committee proposal, which was reported out on a strong 13-to-2 bipartisan vote, does not present the ideal solution to the urgent matter before us, underscoring the difficulties and complexities that are presented by the question of intelligence surveillance. However, it is a marked improvement over the Protect America Act and represents the collective agreement of 13 of the 15 members of the Intelligence Committee, both Republicans and Democrats. I appreciate the disparate views that many of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle espouse, but in the end, the Senate must work to achieve its will and to find the common ground that is so essential on this issue for our Nation's security. For Congress to be relevant, it must ultimately come to a legislative resolution and conclusion. The underlying premise of FISA recognizes that obtaining a standard search warrant through a typical Federal or State court is not appropriate when dealing with sensitive security operations and highly classified information. In creating separate legal mechanisms for such matters, FISA has, for nearly 30 years, relied upon the rulings of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and continuous congressional oversight in ensuring that fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are respected. Although FISA is and remains an indispensable tool in the war on terror, it was written almost 30 years ago--long before the name ``al-Qaida'' rang with any significance--and it has begun to show its age. FISA was enacted before cell phones, before e-mail, and before the Internet, all of which are used today by hundreds of millions of people across the globe. Unfortunately, those numbers include terrorists who are using these tools for planning, training, and coordination of their operations. Put simply, FISA's technology-centered provisions do not correspond to the systems and apparati that are used in communications today. As Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, said most bluntly and straightforwardly: FISA's definition of electronic surveillance [has] simply not [kept] pace with technology. But we all know this is not the only backdrop to FISA reauthorization. Prior to December 2005, only the party leaders in both the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking members of those Houses' respective Intelligence Committees--the so-called gang of eight--had any knowledge that warrantless surveillance was occurring on U.S. soil with neither court approval nor congressional authorization. Once the program came to light, the administration asserted it had the legal authority to conduct such surveillance anyway, citing considerably tenuous interpretations of both article II of the Constitution and the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq. This was not the power-sharing construct between the three branches of Government under which FISA had operated for nearly three decades. Rather, this was a unilateral exercise of executive branch authority to the exclusion of the other two. The use of unchecked executive power was neither how the Framers of the Constitution nor the framers of FISA intended this matter to be addressed. Accordingly, less than 2 months later, I, along with Senators DeWine, Hagel, and Graham, introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, which called for strict legislative oversight and judicial review of the program. A number of colleagues joined the effort with a variety of additional proposals to both exert congressional oversight, as well as to modernize FISA; and the administration, bowing to this collective congressional pressure, finally permitted full access to the NSA program by members and staff of both Intelligence Committees. Congressional leverage also led the Attorney General this past January to submit the terrorist surveillance program to the requirements of FISA, including appropriate review of Stateside surveillance requests by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. At the time this was viewed as a step toward some restoration of the rule of law and constitutional principles, and FISA reform efforts focused on modernizing the statute for technological purposes. Yet, as noted in the Intelligence Committee's report on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, At the end of May 2007 . . . attention was drawn to a ruling of the FISA court . . . that the DNI later described as significantly diverting NSA analysts from their counterterrorism mission to provide information to the Court. In late July, the DNI informed Congress that the decision . . . had led to degraded capabilities in the face of a heightened terrorist threat environment. FISA reform efforts quickly shifted to addressing this gap. Congress responded this past August by passing the bipartisan Protect America Act, a law which cleared the Senate 60 to 28. Although an imperfect statute, it granted the DNI the tools necessary to protect our homeland at a time when there were well-documented gaps in our intelligence gathering. Congress wisely employed a 6-month sunset to ensure that the shortcomings of this temporary law could be explored at length and properly corrected. The bill before the Senate today is a product of that 4-month deliberation, and given all that I have just outlined, clearly the time has now come to take precise and concrete action. The Intelligence Committee has been guided by its vast expertise in overseeing American intelligence operations, and this proposal sorts out the confusion of the past several years and replaces legal gray areas with clear bright line rules. Central to this revision is the role of the FISA Court--a critical step in this process, as the courts must play a prominent role whenever fourth amendment concerns are at stake. The bill rightly maintains the rule that no court order is required when targeting communications abroad, and clarifies that this remains the case even if, for example, a foreign-to-foreign e-mail transits a server located on U.S. soil. However, the bill would, going forward, allow for so-called ``umbrella surveillance'' only under the following conditions: First, it may be conducted for 1 year. Secondly, the DNI and the Attorney General must certify that such operations would target only those individuals reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. Third, the FISA Court must receive and approve the minimization procedures to ensure that any ``inadvertent collection'' is promptly destroyed. More importantly, where the target is located within the United States, or where the target is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident anywhere in the world, the bill now requires that a warrant first be obtained from the FISA Court. The FISA Court--only the FISA Court--will have the authority to determine that there is probable cause to believe that the U.S. person in question is an agent of a foreign power. Only then may a warrant be issued, and only then may targeted surveillance commence. This is a strong and substantial improvement over the provisions of the Protect America Act. It is noteworthy that this bill, if passed, would recognize for the first time ever the right of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to be free from warrantless surveillance by the U.S. Government even when such person is abroad. As our colleague Senator Wyden said in the Washington Post on December 10, this is a change that was contemplated back in 1978 but which never received the attention necessary from Congress to become law. Finally, the bill authorizes the inspectors general of the Department of Justice and elements of the intelligence community to conduct independent reviews of agency compliance with the court-approved acquisition and minimization procedures--adding another independent check to ensure that the agencies charged with implementing the program are in fact complying with the court order and minimizing any information that was inadvertently collected. This is not to say that the Judiciary Committee substitute was not superior in some regards. For example, it contained far stronger language asserting that the FISA Court and the Federal Criminal Code are the exclusive means by which the U.S. Government may conduct surveillance, counteracting allegations by the administration that the 2002 authorization of the use of military force against Iraq provided an alternate statutory authority. To be clear, the Intelligence Committee bill does state that such a restriction applies to ``electronic surveillance.'' In fact, I felt strongly about this provision, and that is why I joined other colleagues on the Intelligence Committee in submitting additional comments regarding this provision--specifically that FISA is the exclusive means by which the U.S. Government may conduct surveillance. Yet the Judiciary Committee bill took this one step further, expanding exclusivity to cover any ``communications or communications information,'' a broader term meant to reach even those communications not covered under the more narrowly defined category of ``electronic surveillance.'' Yet, on balance, the Intelligence Committee legislation reflects the committee's expertise in this field, and it presents a bipartisan approach for restoring order to the state of the law surrounding Government surveillance. As the Intelligence Committee report noted, the committee held seven hearings in 2007 on these issues, received numerous classified briefings, propounded and received answers to numerous written questions, and conducted extensive interviews with several attorneys in the executive branch who were involved in the review of the President's program. In addition, the committee received formal testimony from the companies alleged to have participated in the program and reviewed correspondence that was provided to private sector entities concerning the President's program. The committee secured IG reports and the orders and opinions issued by the FISA Court following the shift of activity to the judicial supervision of the FISA Court and invited comments from experts on national security law and civil liberties. The committee also examined extensive testimony given before other committees in the last several years and visited the NSA, carefully scrutinizing the program's implementation. The underlying committee bill vests significant authority--and rightfully so--in the FISA Court to authorize targeting of U.S. persons and to sign off on minimization procedures of any nontargeting surveillance. It further modernizes FISA so that its terms apply rationally to today's technology, and streamlines procedures to ensure that the men and women in our intelligence community can maximize their focus on detecting threats to our homeland. It does all of this while employing the Intelligence Committee's technical expertise to avoid any unintended consequences. I wish to focus the remainder of my remarks on what has become the flashpoint of controversy--whether to grant retroactive immunity to the numerous telecommunications companies who have been sued for allegedly providing private customer information to the Government in violation of the law. I believe that this narrow, limited grant of immunity is a proper course of action for these reasons: First, it is critical to note and understand that a grant of immunity to telecom providers for assisting the Government is not a novel concept, but rather a longstanding component of existing law. Specifically, the Federal Criminal Code already states that ``no cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider . . . for providing information, facilities, or assistance'' to the Federal Government in conducting electronic surveillance if the company is presented with either a court order or a certification signed by the Attorney General stating that ``no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specific assistance is required.'' Why, then, must the bill before us contain an immunity provision for communications firms? The answer is that they are unable to invoke it because the very existence of whether a particular company--or any company--did or did not participate in any alleged surveillance has been designated as a state secret by the U.S. Government. This places the telecom companies in a Catch-22 scenario: if, hypothetically, a company did assist the Government, it cannot reveal that fact under the State Secrets Doctrine, and thus cannot claim the benefit of immunity; conversely, if a company did not provide any alleged assistance, it still cannot demonstrate that fact to conclusively dismiss the lawsuit, again because of the mandates of the State Secrets Doctrine. In the 40- plus active lawsuits, defendant telecom companies are in a ``no-win situation.'' To those who may ask why Congress should concern itself with addressing these pending lawsuits, I would answer that the credibility and effectiveness of America's intelligence community depends upon it. Particularly in the wake of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, any American company that, when reportedly presented with proper certification, assisted the Government in a matter of national security was doing so, in all likelihood, in the best interests of our Nation. And punishing such cooperation through subsequent lawsuits could have drastic future consequences. This position has been asserted by former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, both of whom had well-documented misgivings about the administration's approach to surveillance. This view is also held by the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who on October 31 of this year wrote in the Washington Post that the telecom lawsuits are ``unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future''--a development that Chairman Rockefeller assessed would be ``devastating to the intelligence community, the Justice Department and military officials who are hunting down our enemies.'' The immunity provision in this bill is narrow and limited. First, it is only retroactive. It clearly delineates what types of surveillance require a search warrant from the FISA Court and what types do not. The very fact that the FISA Court will be involved contrasts starkly with the ``gray area'' under which the Terrorist Surveillance Program had operated prior to January of this year. This clarity will thus also make it clear as to whether a telecom company is complying with a lawful request and thus whether it will be entitled to statutory immunity. As the Intelligence Committee report underscored, the action the committee proposes should be understood by the executive branch and provided as a one-time response to an unparalleled national experience in the midst of which representations were made that assistance to the Government was authorized and lawful. In doing so, the underlying legislation acts prospectively to guard against any future infringements of constitutional liberties that might occur. By contrast, striking title II will accomplish nothing constructive in the future. To the contrary, as I indicated, it may be counterproductive by discouraging future cooperation by private entities. Second, the bill only grants immunity for civil lawsuits. It would not provide amnesty to anyone--the telecommunications companies, Government officials or any other party--who engaged in any potential criminal wrongdoing. Should any criminal allegations arise against telecommunications officers, Government officials or others, such investigations would not be prevented by this provision. Nothing in this bill is intended to affect any of the pending suits against the Government or individual Government officials. Third, this provision does not make any determination as to whether the program in question was legal. It only grants the telecommunications carriers immunity if the Attorney General certifies those carriers cooperated with intelligence activities designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack and that such a request was made in writing and with the assertion that the program was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. Finally, this bill provides the fairest course of action for addressing corporations that, when presented with an urgent official request at a critical period for our Nation's security, acted in a patriotic manner and provided assistance in defending this Nation. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but necessary and essential because of their unique technical capabilities. Also note that the President initially authorized the NSA program in the early days and weeks after the September 11 attacks, attacks that shocked our Nation and forced us to quickly react and adjust to the new reality of the 21st century, where terrorism was occurring in our own backyard. If a telecommunications company was approached by Government officials asking for assistance in warding off another terrorist attack and those Government officials produced a document stating the President had authorized that specific activity and that activity was regarded as legal, could we say the company acted unreasonably in complying with this request? In the interest of protecting our Nation in this new environment of the 21st century and bringing stability and certainty to the men and women who are in our intelligence community as they carry out their very vital and critical missions in defending and preserving our freedoms at home, I urge passage of FISA reform that is bipartisan, that respects an active balance among all branches of Government, that will establish a key role for the courts going forward in evaluating surveillance measures in the United States and against U.S. persons abroad and that we will allow the intelligence community to devote its full efforts to fighting and winning the war on terror. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a small business from Maine's capital city that will be honored this coming Friday for earning the Kennebec Valley Chamber of Commerce's President's Award for its outstanding contributions to the quality of life in the greater Augusta area. Ganneston Construction Corporation, a woman-owned construction business that works in both the public and private spheres, is known for its sparkling and dependable structures. Founded early in the 1960s as a builder of solely residential units, Ganneston Construction subsequently moved into commercial construction and has continued to expand into other markets since. Presently a full- service general contractor, construction manager, and design builder, Ganneston has taken on projects of varying sizes throughout Maine, and each job is performed in a timely manner with painstaking sensitivity to that particular building's unique requirements. The firm has restored landmarks like the Lewiston Library, made renovations to the well-known Senator Inn in Augusta, and provided the Maine Veteran's Home and Down East Community Hospital in Machias with a new facility. Ganneston has completed roughly 100 projects so far this decade, with examples of its work on display in cities and towns across Maine. Because the company's 45 employees consistently produce buildings of remarkable quality, annual sales have grown from $6 million in 2001 to $15 million in 2007. While Ganneston is to be commended for its dedication to building safe and secure structures, the community service its employees perform is what makes Ganneston so deserving of acknowledgment. Setting an inspirational example is Stacey Morrison, chief executive officer and owner of Ganneston Construction. In addition to managing the company's day-to-day operations, Mrs. Morrison makes time to serve the local area in multiple ways. She is a member of the board of Women Unlimited, a praiseworthy Maine organization that supplies women, minority, and displaced workers with the tools, training, and consistent support needed to be successful in the technical, trade, and transportation industries. Similarly, Mrs. Morrison volunteers for the Kennebec Valley United Way and was recently elected chairwoman of the chapter for 2008. Ganneston's employees have emulated Mrs. Morrison's compassion and leadership and have donated countless hours and dollars to service organizations throughout central Maine. Ganneston Construction's record of success and service is stellar. On the one hand, Ganneston has never failed to complete a contract and continues to see its workload rise as a result of its first-rate performance. Whether constructing for the Air National Guard or the University of Maine, for shopping centers or apartment complexes, Ganneston maintains a commitment to solid craftsmanship that has helped the company earn its prestigious reputation. On the other hand, the company's officers and employees donate significant time and resources to help those in need, making good on Ganneston's value statement ``to give back to the community in which we live.'' I thank Stacey Morrison and everyone at Ganneston Construction for their hard work and determined generosity, and congratulate them on their recognition.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1784, the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007, offered by Senator Kerry and me, chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. I have spoken about this bill on multiple occasions because it is truly critical that our fellow colleagues, in each Chamber and both sides of the aisle, continue to collaborate on our veterans' behalf and support swift passage of this legislation. This bipartisan legislation contains key provisions from both S. 904, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007, which I introduced in March, and Senator Kerry's S. 1005, Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2007. This legislation would have an immediate impact on our men and women fighting around the globe for the freedoms we enjoy every day. First, our bill makes vast improvements to the Small Business Administration's, SBA, Military Reservist Economic Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. The MREIDL program provides funds to businesses to meet ordinary and necessary business expenses that they could have made, if not for the deployment of a reservist who is one of their essential employees. Specifically, the bill establishes a pre-application process so businesses can be prepared, in advance, to apply for an MREIDL and includes a provision allowing businesses up to one year, as opposed to 90 days, to apply. The legislation increases, from $1.5 million to $2 million, the maximum MREIDL loan a business can take and raises, from $5,000 to $50,000, the level of uncollateralized MREIDL loans available to businesses. Finally, our changes to the MREIDL program would allow the SBA administrator to defer the payment of principal and interest while the employee is deployed. The bill would also create a new interagency task force to coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies necessary to increase capital and business development opportunities for, and increase the award of Federal contracting opportunities to, small businesses owned and controlled by veterans. This type of coordinated and targeted effort by our Federal Government is long overdue. Additionally, today's legislation would increase funding for the SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development, and permanently extend the duties and responsibilities of the SBA Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. It would also allow small businesses owned and operated by veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the duration of their owner's deployment. While I have not provided an exhaustive list of this bill's provisions and all that it would do, a simple review of the legislation will reveal that it goes far toward helping our Nation's veteran entrepreneurs and our patriotic small businesses that employ reservists, despite the risk that deployments entail. To that end, I once again urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and pay tribute to George Paraskevaides, a world-renowned titan of industry, a much-beloved humanitarian, and a most esteemed philanthropist. Throughout his exceptional life, George Paraskevaides, in word and deed, exemplified the ageless precepts of ancient Greece: excellence, education, civic engagement, and a love for mankind. And, at every turn, George not only lived up to those ideals--he lived them out in a way that was an example and inspiration to all. Although an Athenian by birth, George moved his family to Cyprus where he pursued his studies and obtained a formal education in architecture, and where he would form with Stelios Joannou what would become the legendary contracting and civil engineering firm of Joannou & Paraskevaides--or J&P. And today, J&P is one of the largest development companies in the world, employing more than 16,000 people and engaged in projects for airports, hotels, highways, homes, and sports arenas to name just a few. Underpinning J&P's success is its hallmark attention to quality and its reputation for completing projects on time and on budget. Through the years, however, in true Greek fashion, George was never content with building on his own success alone, and, time and again, demonstrated a generosity of spirit that was undeniably an ennobling force worldwide. His philanthropy was legendary. To cite just a few examples, he contributed to the Children's Heart Fund Hospital in Minneapolis, the Surgical and Transplant Foundation, and the Cyprus Heart Association. He funded countless scholarships for less fortunate Cypriots and founded the Cyprus Kidney Foundation. Perhaps his most historic gesture occurred during World War II when, at the request of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, George Paraskevaides assisted in building an airport runway for U.S. Allies to use--an act which to this day is remembered for its decisive courage and lasting impact. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that George Paraskevaides has been recognized globally for his immeasurable concern for his fellow man. The prestigious honors include the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II, the Saint Marcus Medal from the Vatican, the St. Paul's Medal by the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of North and South America, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA, Philanthropic Award, and many, many others too numerous to mention. For 91 years, Greece, Cyprus, and the world were all blessed by the presence and good works of George Paraskevaides, and how profoundly fitting it was that Cyprus held a State funeral in his honor earlier this month. Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos characterized George best when he described him as ``a model of humanism, dignity, and kindness. His name became synonymous with the ideals of philanthropy and selfless love towards our fellow man.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with the holiday season upon us, I rise today to recognize a Maine small business that operates with a philosophy of giving back to those in need. Simply Divine Brownies of Brunswick is a baker and distributor of gourmet brownies and assorted gift packages that recently received well-deserved attention for finishing second in Forbes magazine's Boost Your Business contest. Founded in November 2004 as a home business by Trina Beaulier, Simply Divine Brownies is a true treat for the taste buds. In just 3 years, the company has grown to 20 employees, including Trina's daughter Meggen, and now operates in Brunswick's historic Fort Andross Mill. Its gourmet brownies range from the chocolate and nut-filled brownies to the more eclectic cappuccino or peppermint frosted brownies. Seizing the opportunity to bring a creative twist to the epicurean world, Simply Divine produces brownies with a unique Maine accent. The Need'him is a chocolate and coconut brownie based on the needham, a traditional Maine cookie. And the Singin' the Blues consists of a chocolate brownie that is covered with blueberry buttercream frosting and topped with wild Maine blueberries. Simply Divine's brownies also come in a variety of shapes, such as Christmas trees, wedding cakes, and lobsters and even palm trees for those seeking a different climate. Remarkably, Simply Divine is also able to offer Reflection Brownies imprinted with a digital image of the client's choosing, as novel remembrances for special occasions. What makes the company so special--aside from its delicious baked goods--is what Trina and Meggen do to help the less fortunate. Seeking to use their skills to help others, they developed the Divine Intervention Brownie Collection. These specialty brownies come in the shape of hearts and stars, and after each purchase of one of these sets, Simply Divine donates a portion of the proceeds to Volunteers for America, a national nonprofit group that assists people of all ages in rebuilding their lives. Whether it be helping the homeless find safe and affordable housing, or aiding at-risk teens and those with mental illnesses, Volunteers for America helps over 2 million people in over 400 communities, a task that it has successfully performed since 1896. Volunteers for America's philanthropic acts of kindness and compassion are admirable, and at this time of year, we can be particularly thankful for the work that Simply Divine Brownies and other businesses like it do to make these programs a reality. For all their hard work and success, the Beauliers have been celebrated in various capacities over the past several years. Their brownies have been cited as the Snack of the Day on the ``Rachel Ray Show'' and have also been featured on NBC's ``Today's Show.'' Most recently, and perhaps most prominently, Simply Divine came in second in online voting for a Forbes magazine contest to receive a financial assistance package to grow its business. They beat out nearly 1,000 other small companies to place in the final round. Having to create a forward-looking business plan for the contest has been of tremendous benefit to the Beauliers, who say that their newfound knowledge, combined with increased sales and peaked interest in the company, has allowed them to forge ahead with their planned expansion. In the past 3 years, Simply Divine Brownies has made a name for itself. As a family-owned small business that has flourished and continues to receive accolades of the highest accord, Simply Divine's growth certainly has not gone unnoticed. Yet, through it all, the Beauliers and the employees at Simply Divine have found the will and desire to make a difference, and they are to be commended for their insatiable appetite to brighten the lives of others. I wish Trina and Meggen Beaulier and everyone at Simply Divine Brownies a happy holiday season, and continued success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I wish to join all of my colleagues, sadly and regrettably, in a big farewell to my very good friend, a good friend to this institution, a giant in this institution, as Trent prepares to leave the Senate and usher in a new chapter of his much- accomplished life. With his 35 years of distinguished service, his leaving the Senate represents an enormous loss to our Nation and to his beloved State of Mississippi, to the Senate, and to many of us personally. There is no question that it speaks volumes about his dedication and commitment to his beloved State of Mississippi when he could not and would not leave the Senate until his State found solid ground and footing in the aftermath of the horrific devastation of Hurricane Katrina. I must admit I feel as if I bear some responsibility in Trent's leaving the Senate. You see, a few weeks ago, prior to the recess, Trent said: Olympia, if you don't vote with me, I am leaving the Senate. Always the straightforward approach. Trent, I just didn't realize you were serious. So I am a little relieved to know it wasn't about me. But, you know, I have known Trent for 28 years, since we first served together in the House of Representatives, and I have always known him to be an adept and thoughtful legislator in his various leadership capacities in both the House and Senate. He forged the template for reaching out and solving problems and strengthening the respective institutions in which he served. I saw firsthand his masterful skills as minority whip when he was elected in 1981. In 1982, he raised a few eyebrows when this conservative man from the South named a centrist woman from Maine as his chief deputy whip. That was groundbreaking at the time because it was the first Republican woman to serve in that capacity. But in 1981, we only had 192 Republicans in the House, and Trent demonstrated his legendary abilities to cross party lines, secure the votes, and was so instrumental to instituting President Reagan's agenda. So it was no surprise that President Reagan would frequently call Trent and his whip organization to the White House, because he knew Trent was central and crucial to securing those early threshold victorious for his key initiatives. For those who served at that time in the House of Representatives, we had epic budget and tax-cut battles. We were rebuilding our hollow forces after Vietnam and of course the Cold War was in full force. Indisputably, Trent rose to the occasion time and time again. He was a consummate coalition builder. He created what he described as the buddy system, bridging the political divide, understanding that there would be regional, political, and philosophical differences that would divide us, but he would find a way to unite us. At that time we had, what was it, Gypsy Moths, which were the Northeast-Midwest Republicans, those of us who were there, Republicans, and then the Boll Weevils, who were southern Democrats. I will leave it up to you to decide whether it is appropriate to name Members of Congress after insects. Nevertheless, that was the regional divide and it was Trent's challenge to bridge that divide, and he did it time and time again. Even after the 1982 election--we lost 26 Republican seats in the House of Representatives, now we were down to 166 Members of the House--he managed to secure votes that would have eluded others. In fact, we were able to obtain a 100-percent increase in defense spending in 5 years. That is what he was able to accomplish, because he systematically and mathematically as well as philosophically worked with people across the political lines to make it work. As he says himself, he is a congenital doer, who wants to solve the problems of this great Nation. It is no surprise, then, that he would be the first person elected to whip in both the House and Senate. He rose rapidly here within the ranks of leadership, with the culmination as Senate majority leader in 1996. He characteristically wasted no time once again applying the same formula for coalition building and achieving the passage of watershed legislation, as has been mentioned--whether it was the minimum wage, Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation on health care portability, the landmark welfare reform, even after it had been vetoed twice by the President. We all know during that period of time as well his tenure was bookended by unprecedented and historic events--the impeachment trial, a 50-50 Senate for the first time in 120 years, and the worst attack on American soil. He managed to achieve the first balanced budgets in probably more than a half a century. He, as we all well know, guided this institution with dignity and skill during those tumultuous times. On a more personal note, one of the crowning achievements of his persuasive powers is when, as others have mentioned here today, he was determined to dedicate Thursday, one summer day, for Seersucker Day. He approached me with the idea. He said, Olympia, are you going to wear a seersucker suit? I said, Trent, be serious; I am from Maine. We don't wear seersucker suits and I will not wear it. Not over my dead body. Of course, when Seersucker Day arrived, I showed up in a seersucker suit, to his surprise, alive and well. But that is an indication of his ability to persuade. Finally, I think there can be no discussion of Trent's legacy without paying tribute to his extraordinary wife Tricia. Theirs is truly a special partnership. I know Trent would be the first to say he could not have done any of it without Tricia. She in her own right has contributed immeasurably, in both the House and the Senate, and their wonderful children as well. To the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, you have been a pivotal and positive and powerful force for the good for our first branch of Government, bearing a close resemblance to what our Founding Fathers had in mind--Madison in particular--when he said he expected of the Senate ``to prefer the long and true welfare of our country.'' It is with profound gratitude we say farewell and wish you well. God bless you and Tricia and your entire family. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to draw your attention to a critical amendment that I am offering to the Omnibus appropriation bill. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard, I am working with my colleagues in the New England delegation to seek support for this amendment. Our amendment would allow fisheries disaster relief funds to be made available to hard-hit fishermen in all New England States, not just Massachusetts as is currently stipulated From the time the first Europeans arrived in the region that would become New England, fish--particularly groundfish such as cod and haddock--were the fundamental natural resource. It was said that fish were once so bountiful that one could walk across the Gulf of Maine on the backs of codfish. But today, our centuries-old tradition of groundfishing is at a critical juncture, and many of our fishermen are increasingly finding that they can no longer find enough fish to make a living in an industry that has sustained their families for generations. This is because ongoing requirements to rebuild New England's groundfishery have resulted in drastic cuts to the fishing industry and severe economic impacts to our fishing communities. Since 1996, groundfishermen in the Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Fishery have seen their allotted days-at-sea slashed by over 75 percent, from an average of 116 to just 24 days a year. This effectively closes the fishery 93 percent of the time. I understand the need to reduce catch on a temporary basis in order to allow the stocks to rebound from decades of overfishing, but if we are going to have any fishermen left to harvest those rebuilt stocks, we must have Government assistance to sustain the fleet through this rebuilding period. The Maine groundfishing fleet already has been cut in half over the past 13 years, from more than 220 boats in 1994 to just 110 today. Groundfish landings in Maine are down 58 percent over that same time period. Shoreside support industries such as fish processors, and ice, bait and fuel suppliers have suffered similar losses--with jobs in fish processing and wholesaling dropping 40 percent, from nearly 3,000 jobs to less than 1,800 today. Because of these severe economic impacts and their ramifications to shoreside infrastructure and the overall health of coastal communities, earlier this year the Governor of Maine appealed to the Secretary of Commerce, asking that he officially declare a ``fisheries failure'' in this region. Such a declaration under existing law would allow the release of vital disaster assistance to help minimize the devastating losses our fishing communities are experiencing. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Commerce failed our fishermen, when he failed to make this declaration. He misinterpreted Congress's intent when, in the most recent reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act, we authorized disaster relief funding for fisheries crippled by overly onerous regulations. And that mistake was fueled by his decision to cherry-pick numbers and timeframes that provided a rosier analysis of the true cumulative economic impact of the groundfish regulations. It was his contention that the fishery was ``rebuilding.'' While this may be true, the fact remains: today, our fishermen are only allowed to work 24 days a year. If these are the regulations we require, I think that is evidence enough that the fishery should be considered a failure. But given the Secretary's decision, and his rejection of numerous appeals to reconsider, it is now up to Congress to provide this vital economic relief, which will enable our fishing communities to survive while groundfish stocks rebuild over the next several years. But as it now stands in the omnibus, Congress is poised to repeat the mistakes made by the Secretary of Commerce by denying this relief where it is most needed. Currently, the language in the bill would only allow disaster relief funding to groundfishermen in the State of Massachusetts. This language marks a significant departure from the New England delegation's past efforts to address the impacts of groundfish regulations. For nearly a decade, until this language appeared, my staff and I have worked closely with Senators Kerry and Kennedy--as well our colleagues from other New England States--to develop and put forth a comprehensive, consistent, regional approach for achieving the goal of fairly and effectively helping our groundfishermen. The simple fact is that this is a regional fishery. Massachusetts fishermen are chasing the same fish as their Maine or Rhode Island or New Hampshire counterparts. And I am deeply troubled to see that this regional, cooperative approach has been abandoned by my colleagues from Massachusetts, and they now choose to ``go it alone'' without seeing that this is a regional crisis. After all, considering that devastating economic impacts have hit all New England States, especially Maine, it is simply unfair and unreasonable to keep this funding contained to one State. We first worked to remedy this situation and restore a strong regional solution last October. When the Senate passed our Commerce- Justice-Science Bill, S. 3093, we included a Sununu amendment, which I cosponsored, that would have directed $15 million of the funds provided to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to be available to carry out disaster relief activities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. To my great dismay--and without consultation to the New England delegation--the omnibus before us no longer contains the Senate-passed language allowing this disaster relief for New England's groundfishermen. The Senate must now act to restore this funding. If we fail to do the right thing today, the result will be that disaster relief funding will go to only Massachusetts--arguably the State that needs it the least. For example, the port of New Bedford, MA consistently ranks first in the Nation in the value of fisheries landings. Fishermen brought $281.2 million worth of fish to New Bedford alone in 2006, continuing a 7-year trend of increasing value of landings. On top of that--Massachusetts fishermen are already set to receive approximately 6 million of additional fisheries mitigation funding from operators of a liquefied natural gas facility. If Congress does not act to remedy this situation, we could be sounding the death knell for groundfishermen in other New England States. The fishermen in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut would simply be unable to compete with their counterparts in Massachusetts, who will soon find themselves awash in an influx of cash, boosting their bottom lines and increasing their competitiveness. This would be a grievous injustice--one that we cannot countenance. For the sake of the hard-working groundfishermen throughout the other New England States, who have already endured years of costly regulations and are working hard to help stocks recover, I implore my colleagues to support this amendment. Congress must right the wrongs that continue to be carried out on our hardest hit fishermen and coastal communities.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the passage of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, which also included an amendment that added the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act. This vital amendment will equip the Small Business Administration, SBA, with the ability to provide a more comprehensive and aggressive response for future disasters. I especially thank Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Senators Vitter and Landrieu for their steadfast efforts in championing this disaster legislation and ensuring its success. I would be remiss to not also mention, and thank, Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their tremendous leadership on the farm bill. As we learned all too well in the aftermath of the devastating 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, it is imperative that government programs on the frontlines are fully prepared when called upon to aid disaster victims. The SBA's Disaster Loan program faced significant challenges in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Unfortunately, the agency made numerous well-documented mistakes and abdicated its responsibilities, leaving many disaster victims waiting months for loans to be processed or money to be disbursed. Disaster legislation passed today will help ensure that the SBA continues to assist the country's small business community with the same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. I am hopeful that with the passage of this legislation, the Agency will be better prepared, and not repeat the errors of its past. In my former capacity as chair and now as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, reforming and improving the SBA's Disaster Loan program has been one of my top priorities. I have personally visited the gulf region, chaired multiple hearings, and repeatedly sent staff to the affected areas to oversee the SBA's disaster response. In addition, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously passed disaster legislation in each of the last two Congresses. This disaster provision was a product of consensus and compromise. Over the last 2 years, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has worked hand-in-glove to craft bipartisan disaster legislation that will help the SBA respond effectively and swiftly to future disasters. Specifically the legislation: establishes a private disaster loan program to be used in the aftermath of catastrophic disasters, allowing banks to make loans directly to victims with an 85-percent government guarantee; creates a new expedited disaster assistance business loan program to provide short-term relief to businesses damaged or destroyed in catastrophic disasters while they await other Federal assistance or insurance payments; creates a new presidential declaration of ``Catastrophic National Disaster,'' which will allow the SBA to issue nationwide economic injury disaster loans to small businesses affected by a large-scale disaster; provides key tools for processing disaster loan applications more quickly, such as working with qualified private contractors to process the loans and requiring the SBA to report to Congress on how the application process can be improved; and increases the maximum size of a disaster loan from $1.5 million to $2 million and allows nonprofit groups to be eligible for disaster loans. I commend my fellow Senators for passing the farm bill, which included this crucial disaster loan provision. The President should quickly sign this legislation into law so our country will be better prepared to respond to potential disasters. Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, we have put a couple of good days together now. Yesterday was a good step forward with the Energy bill. Now we are about to achieve something else. It is no mystery why: When the majority decided to work with us on Energy, we achieved a consensus. And when they decided to work with us on the farm bill, same thing. This bill contains some very good things. And for that we all owe a lot to Senator Chambliss. And I want to thank him for his outstanding work on this bill and for his patience. This one required a lot of it. And I also want to thank the majority leader and Chairman Harkin for seeing this legislation through. I am proud to represent one of the Nation's most important agricultural States and so many family farms, which enrich and sustain not only Kentucky but the entire Nation. Kentucky farmers are the best in the country. And the families who run them and the rest of the people of the Commonwealth will all benefit from this bill's new investment in nutrition, renewable energy, and rural development programs, as well as additional incentives for conservation of natural resources. We have had some real accomplishments this week--some genuine results achieved through cooperation. And at the risk of repeating myself, I think there is a lesson here. Unless we find a commonsense, bipartisan path forward on legislation, we all end up empty handed. But today, we will not have done that. And that, I think, is a very good thing.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unequivocal support for landmark energy legislation before us today that will revive our long dormant energy policy. I want to especially recognize Senator Feinstein for her resolve in including momentous, benchmark CAFE standards for the first time in three decades--without her tenacity this critical component would not be included in this legislation. Furthermore, I want to thank Senators Inouye, Stevens, Bingaman, and Domenici for crafting this historic legislation. And it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Feinstein for the past 7 years toward this goal and authoring with her the CAFE measure that was the basis for the provision included in this bill, and that is central to our environmental well-being. As record energy costs continue to saddle Americans and hamper the growth of our economy, this legislation is, quite frankly, long overdue. Since the Senate passed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act in June, our failed energy policy has proliferated into a crisis. Currently, in my home State of Maine, trucks remain idle because the prohibitive cost of diesel--an astonishing 43 percent higher than last year--has made trucking simply unprofitable and untenable for many. And as I speak, residents in Washington County in Maine as well as other areas around the State--are contemplating whether to purchase food, medicine or heat. The reality is, our energy policy has ambled aimlessly for decades-- and Mainers and Americans are quite literally paying the price. As a result, this timely energy legislation could not be more critical as it represents the initial step toward the boldness of leadership on this issue that the American people desire and require. Indeed, the bill before the Senate represents a departure--finally--from the regressive policies of the 20th century to a sustained long-term energy policy that both challenges and harnesses the U.S. preeminent attribute of innovation. And this change comes not a moment too soon. The fact is, while each of us understands the unacceptable cost of gasoline, heating oil, and electricity for our constituents, we must also be cognizant that our energy policy has been a boon to America's adversaries. As Thomas Friedman recently remarked, petro-authoritarianism is sweeping the globe. In 2005, Iran earned $44.6 billion from crude oil exports when oil was $50 a barrel--now it is $90. The reality is, our current energy policy directly shifts America's hard- earned money to the least democratic countries and most dangerous in the world including Venezuela and indirectly to Iran. Although this is, in itself, an undeniable reason to change our energy policy, our failed approaches of the past are also manifested in the challenge of global climate change. The release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change completed in mid-November concluded that climate change is ``unequivocal'' and accelerating. Indeed this summer, the Arctic Ocean exposed 1 million square miles of open water, the most that has been determined since measurements have been taken. Quite frankly, it is beyond dispute that the United States must take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions and stem climate change. That is why this timely legislation is absolutely essential to our Nation's security and our environment--as well as our pocketbooks and wallets. Indeed this body is on the brink of forging an energy policy that would provide dividends to the American consumer, enhance American security, and reestablish American leadership on environmental issues by confronting climate change. The question now is, Will we? We can't afford to wait and, on that note, I particularly want to highlight the inclusion of the CAFE provisions that will finally place this country on track to substantially improve our Nation's automobile fleet from 25.2 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Because this provision that Senator Feinstein and I authored is the most significant step our Nation can take to address our long-term energy crisis. As the New York Times stated on November 14th, ``The single most effective way to address the problem of oil imports and consumption is to improve the efficiency of cars and light trucks, which use more than two-thirds of all the oil burned in the United States.'' This legislation will save Americans 1.1 million barrels of oil per day-- nearly the same amount imported from Saudi Arabia. And at a time when thousands of families are struggling to provide the basic necessity of heat in their homes, indisputably we must not squander oil through inefficiency. There is no question this is a measure whose time has long since come, given the last time Congress comprehensively adjusted CAFE standards was over 30 years ago, in 1975, when the price of gasoline was 60 cents per gallon. Yet all we have done in 32 years is raise CAFE by a measly 5 miles per gallon for light trucks and not at all for passenger vehicles. It is like the program that time forgot. That is why this provision is essential for any comprehensive energy legislation. The legislation significantly before us achieves the goal of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 through an attribute-based system, incorporating the 2001 National Academy of Science's recommendation that ``Consideration should be given to designing and evaluating an approach with fuel economy targets that are dependent on vehicle attributes such as vehicle weight.'' Why is this important? Because this concept maintains a critical component of America's automobile fleet, and that is consumer choice. This is the innovative approach that Senator Feinstein and I developed that focuses not on defacto mandates on what type of vehicles are built and sold but rather on the end result of overall fuel savings. And I am particularly pleased that the auto companies have recognized the merits in this proposal and support this initiative. This represents a sea change from the previous divisiveness of this central issue, and I want to applaud my colleagues who worked with Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and I to craft this historic breakthrough that represents a new automotive era, ensuring that we will not return to the wasteful gas-guzzling days of the past. Furthermore, this legislation provides critical tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy, to wean ourselves off the expensive foreign petroleum that, as I have said, also serves to line the pockets of some of the world's most dangerous tyrants. This country, quite frankly, has abrogated its commitment to a substantial investment in altering our energy policy--a problem encapsulated in a special report in the Economist, which stated that, regrettably ``America's incentives for clean energy'' are ``relatively modest compared to Europe's.'' Furthermore, the article illustrates that, ``what one politician can mandate, another can terminate--and therein lies one of the biggest risks for clean energy. American politicians have periodically allowed a tax break for wind generation to expire, for example. This caused the industry to falter several times, before the credit was renewed again.'' Accordingly, I am extremely disappointed that this legislation fails to extend the vital renewable production tax credit. If we truly want to alter our Nation's energy policy we must make substantial investments and it confounds me why we elected not to make that a national priority. In addition, I want to voice my strong opposition to the inexplicable removal of the renewable portfolio standard to create a market for sustainable resources. The State of Maine has demonstrated that this provision stimulates the development of hydropower, wind, solar, tidal, and biomass energy with more than 30 percent of our energy flowing from these sources. Enactment of this strong RPS would have promoted fuel diversity and reduced our substantial dependence of natural gas. This reliance on natural gas was unfortunately illustrated in Maine last week when a Canadian supply disruption of imported natural gas forced to shut down two natural gas plants. Frankly, we must promote energy diversity to ensure energy reliance--and this strong Renewable Portfolio Standard that his legislation fails to include would have ensured that Americans would have received 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources and ensured a basic level of diversity while promoting clean energy. I urge my colleagues to address this central issue in the future. On the more positive side, I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, and also House Small Business Committee Chair Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot, to fashion a bipartisan small business title to this Energy Bill. This title includes virtually all of the provisions in the ``Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007'' (S. 1657), which Senator Kerry and I introduced in June. This year, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am the ranking member, has paid particular attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects as clearly rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating affect on the health of small business in this country. As we all recognize, small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their businesses. We must significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small businesses. To that end, the small business title in the Energy bill will make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses that wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their businesses. I firmly believe that the SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and procedures for fast approval. Another key provision would encourage small business innovation in energy efficiency, by creating a priority under the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, program for solicitations by small businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development. The small business title would also create a pilot, competitive grant program that would be administered through the national network of Small Business Development Centers, which would provide ``energy audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency practices, as well as offer access to information and resources on energy efficiency practices. Finally, the small business title will ensure that the SBA completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 6 months of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be mandated to complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including setting up a ``Small Business Energy Clearinghouse'' that builds on the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program to assist small business in becoming more energy efficient. Frankly, I am alarmed by the lack of progress that SBA has made on these requirements, which President Bush signed into law nearly 2\1/2\ years ago. Unfortunately, this may be one more example of the administration's unwillingness to lead on actions to address global warming. By contrast, the small business title will help to ensure that the SBA finally completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act and actually play a leading role in combating global climate change. It is my hope that the small business title in the Energy bill will spur more small firms to make a smaller carbon ``footprint'' and play a leading role in the actions that are essential in combating global warming. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the environment but will also significantly lower the energy costs for cash-strapped small businesses. Given our Nation's energy crisis, we must pursue every opportunity to pursue energy savings, and I therefore must express my strong disappointment that the issue of truck weights was not considered in this legislation. This is a timely issue that has unnecessarily placed the Maine trucking industry and the safety of our residents in jeopardy. The issue, quite frankly, defies even the most elementary logic. Currently, arbitrary rules create two distinct truck weight limits that capriciously bisect the State at Augusta. Specifically, from the New Hampshire/Maine border to Augusta trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95. However, beyond this point all the way from Augusta to Houlton--a distance of 200 miles--the regulation recedes to 80,000 pounds. As a result, north of Augusta, heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through our cities, towns, and villages and they fail to use the Federal highway system. This mosaic of Federal regulations unnecessarily costs our Nation energy by requiring additional truck trips to meet the needless 80,000 limitation. Truckers must make additional trips for the transportation of fish, lumber, blueberries, and potatoes, which increases the costs of these goods and regrettably has become a major safety issue on the secondary roads of Maine with these massive trucks speeding through Maine's communities. With diesel prices upwards of $3.70, the problem has burgeoned into a full crisis and this Federal medley of regulations must end and I urge my colleagues to support me in creating a uniform 100,000-limit restriction on Maine's Federal highways. Overall, I am pleased that this legislation is reflective of the broad ramifications of our energy plan and provides the beginning of a commensurate response to our energy crisis. The manifestations of our current strategy are discernible in some of the greatest issues facing America. The critical issues of climate change, the trade imbalance, and a restricted foreign diplomacy in the Middle East are all directly related to our failed energy strategy. We are realizing, with increasing clarity, the consequences of an oil-based energy policy. Now, with this Energy bill before us, this is a critical initial step but is only the first. A glaring absence in this bill is the preeminent issue of climate change. It is incumbent on this Congress to build momentum from the recent G8 meeting and pass legislation that reestablishes American leadership on this critical environmental issue. Currently, the entire world is meeting in Bali, Indonesia, waiting for an answer from America. The Environment and Public Work's Committee passage of the first comprehensive climate change legislation, coupled with the action today, resoundingly declares that American leadership is hopefully on its way. As I have worked with Senators McCain and Lieberman for 4 years on the Climate Stewardship Act, as well as Senator Kerry on Global Warming Reduction Act, I remain absolutely committed to passing climate change legislation. The legislation before the Senate does not replace the need for comprehensive climate legislation, and I look forward to bringing this fundamental energy and environmental issue to the floor of the Senate when we return after the New Year. Again, this bill represents critical progress toward a comprehensive energy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the additional components to finally achieve American energy independence. I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from California for spearheading this initiative that is so essential and so critical, particularly at this time as we have seen exorbitant increases and historical in energy prices. I also wish to thank Chairman Harkin for his support and his leadership, as well as Senator Chambliss and Senator Crapo for their work on this essential issue and for their cooperation in working to help adopt this component as part of the pending farm bill. Americans have lost confidence in our energy markets--particularly in the futures market. I have heard from numerous constituents who have long been skeptical about the price of gasoline and heating oil prices. Particularly in recent months, we have seen historical increases. Our trucking industry has held numerous meetings across the State because of the rising price of diesel fuel to $3.73 a gallon. These savvy consumers strongly suspect these prices are being manipulated. Frankly, their analysis is supported by a Senate subcommittee report, leading economists, the GAO and most recently the CFTC. How can a market fundamentally change to such a degree that prices are skyrocketing by 43 percent in less than a year? That question is omnipresent in American society today. It is being asked by Mainers who are struggling with heating bills, the industrial sector struggling with electricity prices, and the transportation industry, which is concerned about how long they can sustain these prices. The answer is certainly complex, but it is becoming patently clear that speculation in the unregulated exempt commodities market is exacerbating energy prices. Providing transparency to these dark markets is, bluntly, long overdue, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation which, as Senator Feinstein indicated, will provide transparency and accountability to these exempt security markets. On October 25, a coalition of more than 80 national, regional, and State organizations came together to form the Energy Market Oversight Coalition and wrote each Member of the Senate asking them to finally close the Enron loophole. As the coalition stated in their letter to the Senate: To restore public confidence, all energy markets must be fair, orderly, and transparent so the prices paid by consumers reflect the true supply and demand. In 2005, I requested a report from the Government Accountability Office on the issue of futures market manipulation. That report released on October 24 outlined three fundamental components to a functional futures market. One is access to current information; secondly, a large number of participants in the market; and third, transparency. It is this last piece that is sorely lacking in our markets today. The current system with respect to exempt commercial markets lacks transparency and fails to provide an essential tenet to any futures market. Traders are able to avoid revelations of their identity within these exempt commercial markets. In fact, based on one of the investigations that took place by a Senate subcommittee, they discovered the Amaranth hedge fund had excessively traded natural gas contracts to such a degree that in 2006, it controlled 40 percent of all natural gas contracts in the New York Mercantile. One hedge fund controlled 40 percent of all the natural gas deliveries in the United States. The positions were so substantial the company could unilaterally alter the prices for natural gas. The New York Mercantile, which is subject to the CFTC regulation, required Amaranth in August of 2006 to reduce their holdings of natural gas contracts. Their response, the hedge fund's response, was simply to move its dealings to the exempt commodity market, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the CFTC regulation and cloaking its potentially manipulative market power for further regulation. This is an unacceptable gap in the law, and that is why the legislation we are presenting tonight will address that, because it is long overdue. Even the CFTC reversed their decision and unanimously supported including this oversight as part of their jurisdiction and responsibility. So I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Maine Mutual Group Insurance Company, MMG, a premier regional property and casualty insurance company that continues to grow and flourish. I am particularly pleased that MMG recently completed a major expansion of its headquarters this October. Like many American success stories, MMG has humble roots. The company was founded in Houlton, ME, in 1897, by a group of local farmers who were concerned about the cost and limited availability of insurance in Aroostook County. In 1906, the company moved to Presque Isle, where it remains today. In 1968, the company changed its name when it merged with Maine Mutual Fire Insurance Company. It subsequently merged with United Mutual Insurance Company 10 years later. The company grew exponentially following these mergers, from a premium volume of under $1 million in 1968, to over $20 million by 1988, and over $107 million by 2006. Evolving from a modest local business to a regional force, MMG expanded into Vermont in 1981, New Hampshire in 1984, and Pennsylvania in 2006. In March 2002, the company restructured as a mutual holding company and adopted its present name. By 2006, MMG's policyholder surplus reached a record high of $55.9 million, a 127-percent increase over the previous 5 years. And all the while, the company maintained its presence in Maine's northernmost county, Aroostook County, or ``the County'' as Mainers know it. The County finds itself hundreds of miles from urban and financial centers, and the fact that MMG remains in Aroostook County speaks volumes to its commitment to the community and people of this rural county. Two months ago, MMG completed a $5 million expansion of its headquarters in Presque Isle, adding 20,000 square feet to the facility and creating an additional 50 jobs. Anticipating further growth, the new headquarters can accommodate about 200 employees. The phenomenal growth is first and foremost attributable to the hard work ethic of the people in northern Maine and the company's outstanding leadership. Additionally, in order to continue to grow its business, the company must retain additional investment, and thankfully, through the new markets tax credit, NMTC, Coastal Enterprises of Wiscasset, ME, will soon be enabled to make a sizeable investment in this company. The new markets tax credit program continues to promote investment and economic growth for rural communities throughout Maine. And that is why as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance, I fought for and successfully secured an extension of the NMTC through the end of 2008 to ensure this pivotal program wouldn't just expire at the end of this year--but continue. I am not stopping there, and I am in the process of fighting for another extension. The credit's impact on our State cannot be overstated. This expansion alone of a progressive, regional company in Maine Mutual Group reinforces the value and power of the New Markets Tax Credit in strengthening our communities, exemplifying the best that public-private cooperation can offer. Maine Mutual Group's numerous achievements have not gone unnoticed. In 1991, the firm gained the Governor's Award for Business Excellence. More recently, MMG garnered the Maine Insurance Company of the Year Award in 2000 and 2005, and the New Hampshire Insurance Company of the Year Award in 2004. With all insurance companies operating within those States being eligible for the awards, it is particularly impressive that MMG bested larger national competitors several times over the last decade. In 2007, MMG was rated the top performer on Deep Customer Connections Inc.'s Ease of Doing Business survey. In this survey, more than 8,000 independent agents and brokers assessed the performance of over 220 property and casualty carriers, by comparing them in areas such as underwriting responsiveness and promptness in handling claims, as well as providing effective technology. In addition, MMG was ranked the number one medium-sized company in Maine on the ``Best Places to Work in Maine'' list this year. I congratulate MMG on a job well done, and I look forward to watching its bright future unfold. As MMG continues building on recent achievements, it is well positioned to pursue new market opportunities in the years ahead. MMG is truly a valued member of our business community, and I am honored that it has served Maine so well.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize a man who has gone above and beyond for the State of Maine and the country as a whole. On December 31 of this year, John Massaua will step down from his position as the State director for the Maine Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs. John joined the Maine SBDC as State director just over 6 years ago, with a rare blend of private sector and nonprofit experience. I remember learning about John's background as a founding officer of Staples and becoming excited at the prospect of what he could do for a program that had long underachieved. After more than 6 years as State director for the Maine SBDC, John's retirement will be a loss to Maine's 151,000 small businesses. For a program that counseled over 2,500 clients for more than 14,000 hours last year, replacing his leadership will prove to be a difficult challenge. John has demonstrated an unsurpassed dedication to his job, as reflected by the fact that the Maine SBDC returns $3.30 annually to the Federal Government for each Federal dollar invested. During John's tenure, the Maine SBDC achieved national recognition as an effective and worthwhile investment of taxpayer dollars. The Maine SBDC, which just celebrated its 30th anniversary, has helped create or retain 15,000 jobs and assisted 2,650 entrepreneurs in starting a business. Since its inception, the Maine SBDCs have provided one-on-one counseling to over 42,000 entrepreneurs, including over 200,000 hours of direct assistance and 3,000 workshops and courses. There is no doubt in my mind that Maine's nationally recognized program came of age under John's tutelage, and I will always be thankful that he built something of which the State of Maine can be proud. John's personal accomplishments and awards that the Maine SBDC received over the past 6 years are far too numerous to count--for example, during John's tenure he personally received the Thomas A. McGillicuddy Award for Excellence, the Maine SBDC was a recipient of the prestigious Margaret Chase Smith Quality Award, the Best of the Web Award, and in 2003 the Maine SBDC became only the fourth program in 4 years to earn the ``T'' designation from the Association of Small Business Development Centers. This national accreditation authorizes the Maine SBDC to formally provide technology support to Maine's small businesses and independent workers. During the time that John was developing a program with a national reputation for regional excellence at the Maine SBDC, he also helped SBDCs on the national level through the Association of Small Business Development Centers, ASBDC. The ASBDC is an association which represents the collective interests of SBDCs throughout the country, and on numerous occasions John was selected to serve on their board and within its various committees. Not only was John beneficial to Maine's small business communities, but he was a vital resource to me and my staff. I specifically remember one instance, when in 2005, John testified before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship about the financial burden the 63 State, regional, and territorial SBDCs were under. As expected, John provided a well researched and persuasive argument as to why Congress should provide additional funds to this vital and successful program. Due in large part to John's testimony and dedicated activism, we are finally starting to see a commitment from Congress to provide more funds to the SBDC program. For this, John should always be remembered and duly credited. The State of Maine and small businesses across the country owe a debt of gratitude to John Massaua for his work to protect and improve something as crucial as the Small Business Development Center program. Although he will be missed, I applaud John's years of commitment and hard work in providing entrepreneurs with the management and professional expertise required to achieve success. I sincerely hope that John and I can continue to work together ensuring that Maine maintains a leading role in assisting our Nation's most committed and creative small businesses.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with tremendous enthusiasm, I recognize Maine Machine Products Company, a phenomenal small business from my home State of Maine that manufactures products for various hi- tech industries. Because of its hard work and dedication to leading its field, Maine Machine Products was recognized with the Maine Development Foundation's Champion of Economic Development Award at the Foundation's annual meeting on October 5, 2007. Headquartered in South Paris, Maine Machine Products has a history replete with innovation and success, and is a company highly deserving of such an aptly titled award. Founded in 1956 by Roland Sutton, Maine Machine Products is a custom precision manufacturer of components and assemblies whose products are sent to global high-technology markets including those serving the defense and aerospace, telecom and fiber optic, and semiconductor markets. Located in a temperature-controlled 75,000-square-foot building in western Maine, Maine Machine Products employs roughly 150 highly skilled workers who consistently produce products of the finest quality for these vital industries. Always seeking to be on the cutting edge of technology, Maine Machine Products earlier this year began working with the Mazak Integrex e-Series, which is the most advanced multitasking machine in custom precision manufacturing. The machine allows the company to complete all operations, such as turning, boring, and drilling, in a single setup, increasing productivity and efficiency. Additionally, the firm has upgraded its Clean Room, where it tests and finishes semiconductor equipment, by expanding it and making other improvements. More than merely adding to its existing infrastructure, Maine Machine Products has made significant contributions to both its employees and the western Maine community. Two programs, in particular, demonstrate the attention that the company pays to its workers and aspiring manufacturing personnel. First, Maine Machine Products makes use of the machine operators skills training grant, MOST, program, that assists firms with the training of their computer numerical control, or CNC, operators. In addition, the program attempts to fill open CNC positions with nontraditional workers by training individuals and matching them with employers. In MOST's inaugural season, 52 incumbent Maine Machine Products employees received training through the program, and the company hired 6 new employees who participated. Through a second program, Maine Machine Products gives scholarships to students who are enrolled in the Machine Tool Program at Central Maine Community College based in Auburn. Since its inception in 1974, Maine Machine Products' scholarship program has sponsored 47 scholarships. The program provides a work-study program to students who qualify, and--most fittingly--many graduates of the scholarship program are presently employed at Maine Machine Products. Maine Machine Products has filled a specific niche in the precision custom manufacturing industry for over five decades, and it continues to be a market leader. With measured expansion and sustained growth throughout the years, Maine Machine Products has excelled in a highly technical and competitive field. I wish everyone at Maine Machine Products continued success and growth in the years to come.