Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Care Act of 2007. Original cosponsors this bill include two of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Conrad and Lincoln, as well as Senator Collins. Our legislation will improve access to mental health treatment and remove an unfunded mandate on our nonpublic mental health treatment centers by allowing freestanding psychiatric hospitals to receive appropriate reimbursement for emergency treatment. According to the CDC, visits to hospital emergency rooms rose 20 percent in the past 10 years. This situation is exacerbated by a shortage of short-term inpatient psychiatric care facilities leaving psychiatric patients with a serious mental illness with nowhere to go. In fact, in 2003, there were 3.7 million visits to hospital emergency department for mental disorders. If treatment remains unavailable, patients could become homeless or be housed as criminal offenders. The Emergency Medical and Labor Treatment Act, EMTALA, requires all hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, to stabilize patients who come in with an emergency medical condition. However, an outdated Medicaid provision called the Institution for Mental Diseases, IMD, exclusion does not allow Medicaid reimbursement to nonpublic psychiatric hospitals for stabilizing care delivered to Medicaid patients between the ages of 21-64. This policy isolates adults with mental illnesses from all other Medicaid-eligible populations and contradicts the principles of equal treatment and insurance parity for treatment of mental illnesses. When the IMD exclusion was created, individuals who were afflicted with mental health conditions often were institutionalized for an extended time. Today, hospitalization for common mental health concerns such as mild depression does not generally occur, thus removing the potential for abuse of the system. This exclusion burdens these facilities with an unfunded mandate and has caused severe financial burdens to psychiatric facilities--often amounting to millions of dollars a year. The IMD exclusion does not take into consideration the vast advancements that have transformed mental health services available today, and actually restricts access to critical mental health services for those who, by today's standards, are in the greatest need. Emergency department overcrowding is a growing and severe problem in the United States, and dedicated physicians and nurses who work in emergency rooms are reaching a breaking point where they may not have the resources or surge capacity to respond effectively. Patients often face a long wait in the emergency room, sometimes for days, because there is no bed or other appropriate setting available. Tens of thousands of dollars every day are being spent inefficiently on extended treatment in emergency rooms that is not the most appropriate or clinically effective care. Passage of this bill will help relieve overcrowding in emergency departments and allow hospitals to provide the appropriate care these patients deserve.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Care Act of 2007. Original cosponsors this bill include two of my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senators Conrad and Lincoln, as well as Senator Collins. Our legislation will improve access to mental health treatment and remove an unfunded mandate on our nonpublic mental health treatment centers by allowing freestanding psychiatric hospitals to receive appropriate reimbursement for emergency treatment. According to the CDC, visits to hospital emergency rooms rose 20 percent in the past 10 years. This situation is exacerbated by a shortage of short-term inpatient psychiatric care facilities leaving psychiatric patients with a serious mental illness with nowhere to go. In fact, in 2003, there were 3.7 million visits to hospital emergency department for mental disorders. If treatment remains unavailable, patients could become homeless or be housed as criminal offenders. The Emergency Medical and Labor Treatment Act, EMTALA, requires all hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, to stabilize patients who come in with an emergency medical condition. However, an outdated Medicaid provision called the Institution for Mental Diseases, IMD, exclusion does not allow Medicaid reimbursement to nonpublic psychiatric hospitals for stabilizing care delivered to Medicaid patients between the ages of 21-64. This policy isolates adults with mental illnesses from all other Medicaid-eligible populations and contradicts the principles of equal treatment and insurance parity for treatment of mental illnesses. When the IMD exclusion was created, individuals who were afflicted with mental health conditions often were institutionalized for an extended time. Today, hospitalization for common mental health concerns such as mild depression does not generally occur, thus removing the potential for abuse of the system. This exclusion burdens these facilities with an unfunded mandate and has caused severe financial burdens to psychiatric facilities--often amounting to millions of dollars a year. The IMD exclusion does not take into consideration the vast advancements that have transformed mental health services available today, and actually restricts access to critical mental health services for those who, by today's standards, are in the greatest need. Emergency department overcrowding is a growing and severe problem in the United States, and dedicated physicians and nurses who work in emergency rooms are reaching a breaking point where they may not have the resources or surge capacity to respond effectively. Patients often face a long wait in the emergency room, sometimes for days, because there is no bed or other appropriate setting available. Tens of thousands of dollars every day are being spent inefficiently on extended treatment in emergency rooms that is not the most appropriate or clinically effective care. Passage of this bill will help relieve overcrowding in emergency departments and allow hospitals to provide the appropriate care these patients deserve.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Jordan-Fernald Funeral Homes, an outstanding small business in my home State of Maine that exemplifies the best of Maine's community spirit. Founded in 1860 by the Fernald family, Jordan-Fernald is now in its fourth and fifth generations of ownership. Over the years, the Fernalds purchased several Jordan Funeral Home locations to become Jordan-Fernald in 2004. Currently, four Fernalds siblings--Bill, Tom, and Lauri, along with their father, Robert--co-own the business. Presently maintaining funeral homes in four towns in Hancock County, the Fernalds have always prided themselves on their stalwart commitment to the ever-changing needs of the local communities. For example, Bill participates in a local project to prepare the Hancock County area against a potential pandemic flu. Meanwhile, Tom serves on the boards of the Maine Funeral Directors Association and the Maine Coast Memorial Hospital and Lauri serves on the boards of the Hospice of Hancock County, the Abbe Museum, and the Hospice Regatta of Maine. Finally, Robert is well known in the area for his work on behalf of the Lions Club. In recognition of the Fernalds' contributions to the communities, Jordan-Fernald received the Gannett Family Business of the Year Award in 2005. This award recognizes family-run businesses that demonstrate creativity in ensuring their company's vitality while maintaining ties with their communities and stakeholders. Jordan-Fernald was selected, along with one other business, out of a pool of 22 nominees. Family- owned businesses represent approximately 90 percent of all Maine businesses, yet less than 30 percent survive to the second generation and only 13 percent survive to the third generation, making it all the more impressive that Jordan-Fernald has survived to the fifth generation! Most recently, Jordan-Fernald received the Top Drawer Award from the Ellsworth Area Chamber of Commerce. The award is presented to a business that has made a substantial contribution to the growth, development, and improvement of Ellsworth, Hancock County, and the State of Maine. The Ellsworth Area Chamber president, Chrissi Maguire- Harding, cited Jordan-Fernald's commitment to the region through participation on community boards, support of other businesses, and economic growth as the main reasons for the award. In modern times, where one-third of Maine funeral homes are owned by a single corporation based in Texas, Jordan-Fernald has managed to maintain independence and a bountiful community spirit. Jordan-Fernald is an exemplary small business. The firm's dynamic approach toward business and community involvement benefits everyone throughout eastern Maine and, indeed, the entire State of Maine. I commend Jordan-Fernald Funeral Homes for its dedication and leadership, and I wish the enterprise much success going forward.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I congratulate Penobscot Bay Porch Swings of Brunswick, a woman-owned company dedicated to reviving the tradition of porch swings in my home State of Maine. Inspired by the old-fashioned hammock swings she saw along the Maine coast while on a field trip with her daughter, Sarah Bloy began creating the prototype for what would become the widely popular Penobscot Bay Porch Swing. After 4 years of planning and a trip to the Marine Canvas Training Institute, Ms. Bloy commenced production of her porch swings in January 2005. Each swing, which takes between 8 and 10 hours to make, is delicately produced in a studio workshop at Brunswick's Fort Andross by Ms. Bloy with the assistance of her dedicated employee. Penobscot Bay Porch Swings is a successful small business due to Ms. Bloy's entrepreneurial and innovative spirit. Her company's hand-made porch swings are similar to those fashionable at the turn of the 20th century in Maine and New England, illiciting nostalgia for some and amazement for many others. Penobscot Bay Porch Swings offers an assortment of styles that were named to celebrate Maine's coastal heritage. The Bar Harbor, Kennebunkport, and Camden are some of the swing styles available. Moreover, the swings' vibrant colors provide a contemporary look to a time-tested design. Choosing between colors, such as Capri blue and Tuscan orange, Jockey red and Seville Seaside stripes, customers have many bright and welcoming options for the color of their swing. And each hammock swing is carefully crafted with mildew resistant Sunbrella fabric to temper the tough elements of New England's climate. Ms. Bloy has also created the inventive Castine Cradle, a swing-like crib especially designed for babies and infants. Along with the swings and cradles, Ms. Bloy also constructs a plethora of brilliant pillows to coordinate with her swings, in even more creative colors like Beachfront Balsam and Sandrine Sunset. Her sights are set on expanding her business, with the hopes of designing new and more creative products for her clientele to enjoy for seasons to come. Porch swings and hammocks have long been a staple of east coast life, and Ms. Bloy's expertly crafted swings will help to revitalize interest in this outstanding tradition. Penobscot Bay Porch exemplifies what a small business can accomplish with a pioneering and talented Mainer, such as Sarah Bloy, at the helm. Penobscot Bay Porch Swings has built a reputation of meticulous craftsmanship and durability, and I wish Sarah and everyone at Penobscot Bay Porch Swings the best of luck as they continue to thrive and expand.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Kerry in introducing the Global Change Research Improvement Act of 2007, that amends and strengthens the existing U.S. climate change research and assessment program that will ultimately benefit all of the citizens of our Nation. Our intent is to improve upon the basic research and products that the Federal Government develops on climate change and its inherent impacts. We believe our legislation would refocus the emphasis of the nations' climate change program and fulfill the need for relevant information for States, and local and nongovernmental decisionmakers. In addition, the creation of a new National Climate Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, will provide climate change forecasting on a regular basis to end-users, and create a permanent network for the delivery of such information so that decision makers in every city and town, county and State, and the Federal Government can make timely planning decisions to deal with impacts and develop adaptation methodologies. The legislation also calls for an Abrupt Climate Change Research Program within NOAA--a program I have been supporting for at least 5 years now--so that scientists can gather more knowledge about a change in the climate that occurs so rapidly or unexpectedly that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to the change. I am proud to say that my alma mater, the University of Maine at Orono, has a world renowned abrupt climate change research program under the direction of Dr. Paul Mayewski. He and his colleague Dr. George Denton, UMaine Libra Professor of Geological Sciences have been major contributors to research on abrupt climate change. There is a need for a national research program to coordinate and further research on past climate shifts so that scientists can better predict what future climate change holds for our fragile planet. The Global Change Research Program, GCRP, the country's climate research and assessment program, was established in law by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Consider what has happened technologically since then, what was generally unheard of at that time. We now drive hybrid cars, we are tuned into iPods, we use hand held blackberries for instant communication, we have much more advanced and high speed computers for modeling and, most importantly for our legislation, more comprehensive knowledge and understanding of climate change through 17 more years of peer-reviewed scientific research, monitoring, and assessments. Our nation's climate change research program needs restructuring so that we can turn that knowledge into timely and useful information for decisionmakers. This is exactly what our bill does. Unfortunately, the overall GCRP program's budget has been steadily declining since fiscal year 2004, which is alarming since, at the same time, we have a growing need, a truly urgent need, to better understand and predict climate change. Over the past several years, independent reports, including a review by the National Academy of Sciences, have documented weaknesses and gaps in the current implementation of the GCRP. In fact, a Federal district court found that the current administration had failed to comply with the statute's mandate to provide regular assessments of the impacts of climate change on critical resources; no such assessment has been published since October 31, 2000. Our legislation makes important changes to address these weaknesses and gaps, making important changes to strengthen the mandate to provide assessments, enabling the GCRP to perform critical climate observations and research on climate systems; improve our ability to predict climate impacts at national, regional and local levels; and, importantly, to communicate those impacts in a timely and useful fashion to State and local decisionmakers, resource managers, and other stakeholders. Back in the 14th century, a Franciscan friar William of Ocklam came up with the principle that has, through the ages, been called Occam's razor. The Latin explanation ``entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' which paraphrased means, ``All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.'' This is what Senator Kerry and I are attempting to accomplish with this bill, to simply focus rather than to continue to multiply and to dilute how our climate change research programs are currently carried out with no real usable information for the decisionmakers who must deal with the problems of global warming. We hope our colleagues agree with these necessary improvements and will join us with their support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act of 2007. I truly appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Small businesses have propelled our Nation's economic growth, producing more than 50 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, GDP, and creating between 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs annually. The Small Business Administration's loan guarantee programs are a vital source of financing for many of these small start-up firms, entrepreneurs seeking working capital, and small businesses that must purchase larger office space or secure factory equipment so they can continue to expand. At the same time, the SBA's 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not endure if careless oversight, and a lack of standards, allow scandal to tarnish the good names of these programs. The 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not survive if we cannot prove to taxpayers that the money spent to guarantee small business loans actually produces economic vitality, opportunity, and new jobs, for our Nation. Make no mistake, the only way to protect these integral programs and demonstrate their effectiveness and economic growth capacity is through the use of concrete measurements. In order for the SBA's lending portfolios to grow and allow more small firms to secure the capital they require, the SBA must quantify both quality and performance by establishing the specific criteria it will examine and then assess changes in these factors over time. Additionally, these benchmarks must be codified and transparent so that lenders and small businesses understand what is being measured. The problem is this: although the SBA evaluates portfolio quality, and uses these assessments to conduct lender oversight, the SBA has failed to provide participating lenders with some of the criteria or formulas the Agency uses to determine if their portfolios are sound or substandard. This lack of transparency not only hinders the SBA's lender oversight capabilities, it causes participating 7(a) and 504 lenders to be critical of the SBA's ability to accurately assess portfolio quality. Regrettably, the SBA's current oversight and portfolio quality assessment methods have not prevented recent high- profile scandals from occurring. Currently, the SBA has roughly $60 billion in outstanding loans issued to small businesses. Yet incredulously it does not track these businesses' economic performance. While the SBA's total loan volume has increased substantially over the last 10 years, the agency has no way to show how these loans benefitted the U.S. economy. Ultimately, the SBA is unaware of how many jobs these loans have created, whether company net-sales or revenues have increased after securing capital, or how many of these companies prepay, default, or go out of business. Though the purpose of these loans is to spur economic growth, the SBA does not assess the actual economic outcomes these loans help make possible. Without these measurements, how can the SBA attest to the incredible economic lift and vitality these loans help generate? Two recent Government Accountability Office reports, one from July of this year and one from June of 2004, recommended that the SBA improve its economic performance and portfolio quality measurements. Our bill would implement the GAO's recommendations and improve the performance measures for 7(a) and 504 loans. Among other things, the bill would require the SBA to: create standards for lenders' portfolio quality; increase the transparency of the SBA's lender oversight evaluation measures; report on borrowers' economic performance; and create a 7(a) and 504 portfolio default rate that can be compared directly to commercial lenders' default rates. We have an obligation not only to maintain, but to strengthen and improve the SBA's key loan programs that I have heard time and again are a critical lifeline to the job generators we call small businesses. The remedies that Senator Kerry and I are proposing today are necessary for the SBA's lending programs to expand, and reach all of the small businesses that must have access to capital. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act. 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 preserve the Federal Communications Commission's right to deny a low-power FM license if the applicant has run afoul of basic, longstanding Federal restrictions on the transmission of radio waves, such as if the applicant has been previously fined for running an unlicensed ``pirate'' radio station. Before the issuance of low-power licenses, numerous individuals and entities operated low-power FM stations without a broadcast license. These ``pirate'' stations many times broadcasted in open defiance of the Commission's initial ban on LPFM broadcasts. From January 1998 to February 2000, the Commission shut down, on average, more than a dozen unlicensed radio stations each month. On several separate occasions, these unlicensed radio stations actually disrupted air traffic control communications. Congress, through the enactment of the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000, directed the FCC to modify its low-power FM rules to ``prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934'' so the Commission could curtail these pirate stations and disruption occurrence. My concern is by completely repealing section 632, which pending legislation proposes, it hinders the ability of the FCC to prohibit applicants from receiving low-power FM licenses. The Commission is responsible for making sure broadcasters follow the basic rules and regulations that are inherently essential to having a broadcast service that serves public interest since broadcasters are utilizing public spectrum. This legislation retains a targeted response to the problem of pirate broadcasting. The commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ``public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served.'' Completely repealing Section 632 could hinder the FCC from upholding this responsibility with respect to low-power FM broadcasters. For this reason, we must act to preserve the FCC's authority to be able to prohibit low-power FM licenses to applicants that have violated basic tenets of broadcast policy--it is only logical that we do this to ensure businesses that use the public spectrum, in any capacity, adhered to laws government has put in place to serve and protect the public interest. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the prosperity and competitiveness of an element of agriculture that is often overlooked: American aquaculture. Some experts estimate that to meet the demand for healthy, fresh aquacultural products, global production will have to double in the next 40 years. Yet in spite of this skyrocketing demand, America is at risk of being left behind by other nations who have thus far exhibited greater foresight than we have; putting into place a comprehensive infrastructure for sustainable seafood. While it is true that American aquaculture sales exceeded an impressive one billion dollars in 2005, this was a pittance when compared to the $70 billion market worldwide. In fact, in 2006 the U.S. had a trade deficit in seafood production of $9.1 billion. With demand rising so dramatically globally and, in particular, here at home, we cannot afford to fall behind any further. That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce the National Aquatic Animal Health Act. This legislation will begin the process of creating a national infrastructure that will attract investment, protect the valuable stocks of our aquaculture farmers from disease, and create a unique, flexible partnership between the Federal Government, State agencies, and industry groups. Dedicated to proactively monitoring seafood stocks for disease, this program will employ the resources and vast field experience of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, coupled with experts on disease at various State agriculture and marine agencies and industry professionals to certify the health of all participating aquaculture species. Modeled after similar animal monitoring programs already in place at APHIS, this program will provide a nationwide set of standards, the kind of uniformity that is currently absent in the aquaculture community. Instead, a myriad of jurisdictional conflicts and competing regulations among various states creates uncertainty and erects impediments to interstate commerce. But this bill is not a set of onerous regulations imposed upon the private sector by a federal agency; under the legislation, states are required to opt-in to the program. They must choose to utilize the assets available in this legislation to assist in preserving that state's particular aquaculture products. My home State of Maine has tremendously benefited from aquaculture. There are nearly three dozen hatcheries in the State, handling both finfish and shellfish. Our 3,500 miles of coastline has served as an ideal incubator for the expansion of the aquaculture industry. The total economic activity generated from the industry State-wide was over $130 million last year, providing jobs for over 1,000 hard-working Mainers. This sort of productivity was not always the case. In 2001, nearly all the salmon stocks in Maine had to be eliminated due to an outbreak of a crippling, infectious disease known as ISA. It took the industry years to recover. Now, the Great Lakes face the threat of the virulent pathogen known as VHS. It is my hope that with swift passage of this legislation, we will no longer have to fear this kind of widespread disease and the subsequent containment costs that could cause inestimable damage to an industry that is struggling to catch up to its global competitors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward on debating Federal farm policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce, with Chairman Kerry, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007. This critical legislation is a product of consensus-building and compromise over the past few years and truly reflects the bipartisan nature of our Committee. Thank you, Chairman Kerry, for working to make this a truly bipartisan bill. This legislation addresses the numerous barriers facing small businesses in securing their fair share of Federal contracting dollars. Currently, small businesses are eligible for $340 billion in Federal contracting dollars, yet receive only $77 billion. Regrettably, the Federal Government consistently fails to satisfy its 23 percent small business goal resulting in small businesses losing billions of dollars in contracting opportunities. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that Government agencies have time and again egregiously failed to achieve most of their small business statutory ``goaling'' requirements. For example, in fiscal year 2006, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program met only 2.1 percent of its three percent goal, while our Nation's service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses received a Government-wide, paltry total of only 0.9 percent of its three percent small business goal. This longstanding area of concern is coupled with a litany of deficiencies that include ``contract bundling,'' sub-contracting misrepresentations, inaccurate small business size determinations, flawed reporting data, and under- utilization of key small business contracting programs. As the Chairman is well aware, these problems are not new, and our Committee has held countless hearings on various contracting concerns throughout the years. Business opportunities through Federal contracts provide vital economic benefits for small businesses, which is why last year, my Small Business Administration Reauthorization Bill, which passed our Committee unanimously, contained a robust package of small business contracting initiatives. Our legislation builds on the contracting provisions of that bill, by improving all of the small business contracting programs--including the HUBZone, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business programs. It equips the SBA with additional tools to meet the demands of an ever-changing 21st century contracting environment. This bipartisan measure also includes several other priorities that I have long championed--most notably, enhancing the HUBZone program. In my home state of Maine, only 118 of 41,026 small businesses are qualified HUBZone businesses. HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs for our Nation's declining manufacturing and industrial sectors--clearly, this program should be better utilized. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bipartisan small business contracting legislation to ensure that all small business ``goals'' are not only met--but exceeded.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase the number of full-time personnel of the Consumer Product U.S. Safety Commission assigned to duty stations at U.S. ports of entry or to inspect overseas production facilities to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has the personnel necessary to adequately address the growing problem of import safety. This bill would more than triple the current number of commission staff assigned to U.S. ports of entry, by requiring that no less than 50 full-time import inspectors be in place at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Additionally, it would expressly authorize the CPSC to send such inspectors to examine the operations at overseas factories which manufacture consumer products destined for the U.S. This legislation is critically necessary, given that an ever- increasing number of the consumer products now sold on our shelves are manufactured in countries with appalling safety and quality control standards, such as China. Sine the year 2000, foreign imports to the U.S. have increased 67 percent by value, with imports from China nearly tripling, growing from $100 billion in 2000 to $288 billion last year. Almost 20 percent of consumer products sold in the U.S. today were made in China. Particularly troubling is that Chinese manufacturers have cornered the U.S. market on toys, with over 80 percent of all toys sold in the U.S. coming from China. Since March 2007, over 8 million pieces of these Chinese-made toys have been recalled due to lead contamination alone. Outrageously, the number of CPSC personnel dedicated to monitoring import compliance with U.S. health and safety requirements has been slashed along with other Commission resources during the very period in which trade liberalization has allowed foreign producers greater access to our markets. With over 60 percent of CPSC staff having been cut over the past 27 years--from almost 1,000 employees in 1980 to a record low of 420 employees in 2007--there remain only 15 full-time Commission personnel assigned to inspect imports at U.S. ports. According to a September 2, 2007, New York Times article, this handful of import inspectors ``are hard pressed to find dangerous cargo before it enters the country; instead, they rely on other Federal agents, who mostly act as trademark enforcers.'' Similarly unacceptable is the fact that the CPSC lacks the staff to send a single inspector to the foreign factories making the goods that we put on our kitchen counters and in the hands of our children. These facts unquestionably reveal, as a Consumers Union official told the Senate Committee on Finance earlier this month, that the CPSC has not kept up with the globalization of the marketplace. That is why I have proposed this bill, which would rapidly shore-up the commission's import inspection staff, who are so critical to protecting us from dangerous foreign products. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense solution to an urgent problem.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce, with Chairman Kerry, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007. This critical legislation is a product of consensus-building and compromise over the past few years and truly reflects the bipartisan nature of our Committee. Thank you, Chairman Kerry, for working to make this a truly bipartisan bill. This legislation addresses the numerous barriers facing small businesses in securing their fair share of Federal contracting dollars. Currently, small businesses are eligible for $340 billion in Federal contracting dollars, yet receive only $77 billion. Regrettably, the Federal Government consistently fails to satisfy its 23 percent small business goal resulting in small businesses losing billions of dollars in contracting opportunities. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that Government agencies have time and again egregiously failed to achieve most of their small business statutory ``goaling'' requirements. For example, in fiscal year 2006, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program met only 2.1 percent of its three percent goal, while our Nation's service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses received a Government-wide, paltry total of only 0.9 percent of its three percent small business goal. This longstanding area of concern is coupled with a litany of deficiencies that include ``contract bundling,'' sub-contracting misrepresentations, inaccurate small business size determinations, flawed reporting data, and under- utilization of key small business contracting programs. As the Chairman is well aware, these problems are not new, and our Committee has held countless hearings on various contracting concerns throughout the years. Business opportunities through Federal contracts provide vital economic benefits for small businesses, which is why last year, my Small Business Administration Reauthorization Bill, which passed our Committee unanimously, contained a robust package of small business contracting initiatives. Our legislation builds on the contracting provisions of that bill, by improving all of the small business contracting programs--including the HUBZone, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business programs. It equips the SBA with additional tools to meet the demands of an ever-changing 21st century contracting environment. This bipartisan measure also includes several other priorities that I have long championed--most notably, enhancing the HUBZone program. In my home state of Maine, only 118 of 41,026 small businesses are qualified HUBZone businesses. HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs for our Nation's declining manufacturing and industrial sectors--clearly, this program should be better utilized. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bipartisan small business contracting legislation to ensure that all small business ``goals'' are not only met--but exceeded.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act of 2007. I truly appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Small businesses have propelled our Nation's economic growth, producing more than 50 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, GDP, and creating between 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs annually. The Small Business Administration's loan guarantee programs are a vital source of financing for many of these small start-up firms, entrepreneurs seeking working capital, and small businesses that must purchase larger office space or secure factory equipment so they can continue to expand. At the same time, the SBA's 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not endure if careless oversight, and a lack of standards, allow scandal to tarnish the good names of these programs. The 7(a) and 504 lending programs will not survive if we cannot prove to taxpayers that the money spent to guarantee small business loans actually produces economic vitality, opportunity, and new jobs, for our Nation. Make no mistake, the only way to protect these integral programs and demonstrate their effectiveness and economic growth capacity is through the use of concrete measurements. In order for the SBA's lending portfolios to grow and allow more small firms to secure the capital they require, the SBA must quantify both quality and performance by establishing the specific criteria it will examine and then assess changes in these factors over time. Additionally, these benchmarks must be codified and transparent so that lenders and small businesses understand what is being measured. The problem is this: although the SBA evaluates portfolio quality, and uses these assessments to conduct lender oversight, the SBA has failed to provide participating lenders with some of the criteria or formulas the Agency uses to determine if their portfolios are sound or substandard. This lack of transparency not only hinders the SBA's lender oversight capabilities, it causes participating 7(a) and 504 lenders to be critical of the SBA's ability to accurately assess portfolio quality. Regrettably, the SBA's current oversight and portfolio quality assessment methods have not prevented recent high- profile scandals from occurring. Currently, the SBA has roughly $60 billion in outstanding loans issued to small businesses. Yet incredulously it does not track these businesses' economic performance. While the SBA's total loan volume has increased substantially over the last 10 years, the agency has no way to show how these loans benefitted the U.S. economy. Ultimately, the SBA is unaware of how many jobs these loans have created, whether company net-sales or revenues have increased after securing capital, or how many of these companies prepay, default, or go out of business. Though the purpose of these loans is to spur economic growth, the SBA does not assess the actual economic outcomes these loans help make possible. Without these measurements, how can the SBA attest to the incredible economic lift and vitality these loans help generate? Two recent Government Accountability Office reports, one from July of this year and one from June of 2004, recommended that the SBA improve its economic performance and portfolio quality measurements. Our bill would implement the GAO's recommendations and improve the performance measures for 7(a) and 504 loans. Among other things, the bill would require the SBA to: create standards for lenders' portfolio quality; increase the transparency of the SBA's lender oversight evaluation measures; report on borrowers' economic performance; and create a 7(a) and 504 portfolio default rate that can be compared directly to commercial lenders' default rates. We have an obligation not only to maintain, but to strengthen and improve the SBA's key loan programs that I have heard time and again are a critical lifeline to the job generators we call small businesses. The remedies that Senator Kerry and I are proposing today are necessary for the SBA's lending programs to expand, and reach all of the small businesses that must have access to capital. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Small Business Lending Oversight and Program Performance Improvements Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to increase the number of full-time personnel of the Consumer Product U.S. Safety Commission assigned to duty stations at U.S. ports of entry or to inspect overseas production facilities to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has the personnel necessary to adequately address the growing problem of import safety. This bill would more than triple the current number of commission staff assigned to U.S. ports of entry, by requiring that no less than 50 full-time import inspectors be in place at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Additionally, it would expressly authorize the CPSC to send such inspectors to examine the operations at overseas factories which manufacture consumer products destined for the U.S. This legislation is critically necessary, given that an ever- increasing number of the consumer products now sold on our shelves are manufactured in countries with appalling safety and quality control standards, such as China. Sine the year 2000, foreign imports to the U.S. have increased 67 percent by value, with imports from China nearly tripling, growing from $100 billion in 2000 to $288 billion last year. Almost 20 percent of consumer products sold in the U.S. today were made in China. Particularly troubling is that Chinese manufacturers have cornered the U.S. market on toys, with over 80 percent of all toys sold in the U.S. coming from China. Since March 2007, over 8 million pieces of these Chinese-made toys have been recalled due to lead contamination alone. Outrageously, the number of CPSC personnel dedicated to monitoring import compliance with U.S. health and safety requirements has been slashed along with other Commission resources during the very period in which trade liberalization has allowed foreign producers greater access to our markets. With over 60 percent of CPSC staff having been cut over the past 27 years--from almost 1,000 employees in 1980 to a record low of 420 employees in 2007--there remain only 15 full-time Commission personnel assigned to inspect imports at U.S. ports. According to a September 2, 2007, New York Times article, this handful of import inspectors ``are hard pressed to find dangerous cargo before it enters the country; instead, they rely on other Federal agents, who mostly act as trademark enforcers.'' Similarly unacceptable is the fact that the CPSC lacks the staff to send a single inspector to the foreign factories making the goods that we put on our kitchen counters and in the hands of our children. These facts unquestionably reveal, as a Consumers Union official told the Senate Committee on Finance earlier this month, that the CPSC has not kept up with the globalization of the marketplace. That is why I have proposed this bill, which would rapidly shore-up the commission's import inspection staff, who are so critical to protecting us from dangerous foreign products. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense solution to an urgent problem.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would require the Federal Communications Commission to fulfill its obligation of conducting an economic study on the impact low-power FM stations have on full-power commercial stations. The reason it is imperative the FCC perform this study is because we don't have a comprehensive understanding as to the effect that low-power FM stations have on their full-power counterparts. When Congress imposed the three-adjacent-channel restriction on low- power licensees in 2001, we tasked the FCC with conducting two studies because we were concerned about the interference LPFM stations could cause with being too close in frequency to full-power commercial stations. The two studies were to determine the impact that the presence of a low-power channel would have with respect to interference with a nearby full-power station and the economic impact the presence of low power stations would bring to the commercial licensees. However, the FCC completed only one study--the interference analysis. My legislation calls for the FCC to complete an economic study on the impact LPFM stations have on full-power commercial radio stations within 18 months and report its findings to Congress. Volunteer, non-profit LPFM stations have found a niche but they also provide competition to full-power stations without having to incur the same costs as those commercial stations, particularly with the absence of licensing fees and employees' salaries. Most of us have raised serious concerns about the continued media consolidation that is occurring and negatively affecting localism and diversity. Part of the reason for this consolidation is because local, independently owned stations are seeing lower profit margins, which are making it more and more difficult to continue broadcasting. Due to shrinking profit, these stations either go out of business or are sold out to larger, nationwide companies. The buy-out of local stations by out-of-town firms does more to harm diverse and locally oriented broadcasting than anything else. So we must actively investigate this trend and determine what is contributing to the diminishing returns of independently owned stations. Some may question why perform this study since Mitre Corporation, the company that performed the initial interference study, recommended the FCC should not undertake the additional expense of a formal listener test program or a Phase II economic analysis. The reason is because the Phase II economic analysis was only on the potential radio interference impact of LPFM on incumbent full-power stations and did not take into account other economic impacts that were outside the scope of that effort. The Government must ensure that by opening up low-power FM broadcast opportunities we are not causing any undue harm to the full- power radio stations, which we have obligations to as the issuer of their licenses. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the Federal Communications Commission's right to deny a low-power FM license if the applicant has run afoul of basic, longstanding Federal restrictions on the transmission of radio waves, such as if the applicant has been previously fined for running an unlicensed ``pirate'' radio station. Before the issuance of low-power licenses, numerous individuals and entities operated low-power FM stations without a broadcast license. These ``pirate'' stations many times broadcasted in open defiance of the Commission's initial ban on LPFM broadcasts. From January 1998 to February 2000, the Commission shut down, on average, more than a dozen unlicensed radio stations each month. On several separate occasions, these unlicensed radio stations actually disrupted air traffic control communications. Congress, through the enactment of the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000, directed the FCC to modify its low-power FM rules to ``prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934'' so the Commission could curtail these pirate stations and disruption occurrence. My concern is by completely repealing section 632, which pending legislation proposes, it hinders the ability of the FCC to prohibit applicants from receiving low-power FM licenses. The Commission is responsible for making sure broadcasters follow the basic rules and regulations that are inherently essential to having a broadcast service that serves public interest since broadcasters are utilizing public spectrum. This legislation retains a targeted response to the problem of pirate broadcasting. The commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ``public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served.'' Completely repealing Section 632 could hinder the FCC from upholding this responsibility with respect to low-power FM broadcasters. For this reason, we must act to preserve the FCC's authority to be able to prohibit low-power FM licenses to applicants that have violated basic tenets of broadcast policy--it is only logical that we do this to ensure businesses that use the public spectrum, in any capacity, adhered to laws government has put in place to serve and protect the public interest. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is vital to the prosperity and competitiveness of an element of agriculture that is often overlooked: American aquaculture. Some experts estimate that to meet the demand for healthy, fresh aquacultural products, global production will have to double in the next 40 years. Yet in spite of this skyrocketing demand, America is at risk of being left behind by other nations who have thus far exhibited greater foresight than we have; putting into place a comprehensive infrastructure for sustainable seafood. While it is true that American aquaculture sales exceeded an impressive one billion dollars in 2005, this was a pittance when compared to the $70 billion market worldwide. In fact, in 2006 the U.S. had a trade deficit in seafood production of $9.1 billion. With demand rising so dramatically globally and, in particular, here at home, we cannot afford to fall behind any further. That is why I have taken this opportunity to introduce the National Aquatic Animal Health Act. This legislation will begin the process of creating a national infrastructure that will attract investment, protect the valuable stocks of our aquaculture farmers from disease, and create a unique, flexible partnership between the Federal Government, State agencies, and industry groups. Dedicated to proactively monitoring seafood stocks for disease, this program will employ the resources and vast field experience of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, coupled with experts on disease at various State agriculture and marine agencies and industry professionals to certify the health of all participating aquaculture species. Modeled after similar animal monitoring programs already in place at APHIS, this program will provide a nationwide set of standards, the kind of uniformity that is currently absent in the aquaculture community. Instead, a myriad of jurisdictional conflicts and competing regulations among various states creates uncertainty and erects impediments to interstate commerce. But this bill is not a set of onerous regulations imposed upon the private sector by a federal agency; under the legislation, states are required to opt-in to the program. They must choose to utilize the assets available in this legislation to assist in preserving that state's particular aquaculture products. My home State of Maine has tremendously benefited from aquaculture. There are nearly three dozen hatcheries in the State, handling both finfish and shellfish. Our 3,500 miles of coastline has served as an ideal incubator for the expansion of the aquaculture industry. The total economic activity generated from the industry State-wide was over $130 million last year, providing jobs for over 1,000 hard-working Mainers. This sort of productivity was not always the case. In 2001, nearly all the salmon stocks in Maine had to be eliminated due to an outbreak of a crippling, infectious disease known as ISA. It took the industry years to recover. Now, the Great Lakes face the threat of the virulent pathogen known as VHS. It is my hope that with swift passage of this legislation, we will no longer have to fear this kind of widespread disease and the subsequent containment costs that could cause inestimable damage to an industry that is struggling to catch up to its global competitors. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as we move forward on debating Federal farm policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would require the Federal Communications Commission to fulfill its obligation of conducting an economic study on the impact low-power FM stations have on full-power commercial stations. The reason it is imperative the FCC perform this study is because we don't have a comprehensive understanding as to the effect that low-power FM stations have on their full-power counterparts. When Congress imposed the three-adjacent-channel restriction on low- power licensees in 2001, we tasked the FCC with conducting two studies because we were concerned about the interference LPFM stations could cause with being too close in frequency to full-power commercial stations. The two studies were to determine the impact that the presence of a low-power channel would have with respect to interference with a nearby full-power station and the economic impact the presence of low power stations would bring to the commercial licensees. However, the FCC completed only one study--the interference analysis. My legislation calls for the FCC to complete an economic study on the impact LPFM stations have on full-power commercial radio stations within 18 months and report its findings to Congress. Volunteer, non-profit LPFM stations have found a niche but they also provide competition to full-power stations without having to incur the same costs as those commercial stations, particularly with the absence of licensing fees and employees' salaries. Most of us have raised serious concerns about the continued media consolidation that is occurring and negatively affecting localism and diversity. Part of the reason for this consolidation is because local, independently owned stations are seeing lower profit margins, which are making it more and more difficult to continue broadcasting. Due to shrinking profit, these stations either go out of business or are sold out to larger, nationwide companies. The buy-out of local stations by out-of-town firms does more to harm diverse and locally oriented broadcasting than anything else. So we must actively investigate this trend and determine what is contributing to the diminishing returns of independently owned stations. Some may question why perform this study since Mitre Corporation, the company that performed the initial interference study, recommended the FCC should not undertake the additional expense of a formal listener test program or a Phase II economic analysis. The reason is because the Phase II economic analysis was only on the potential radio interference impact of LPFM on incumbent full-power stations and did not take into account other economic impacts that were outside the scope of that effort. The Government must ensure that by opening up low-power FM broadcast opportunities we are not causing any undue harm to the full- power radio stations, which we have obligations to as the issuer of their licenses. I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the critical legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Flotation Technologies, an extraordinary global leader in the design and production of deepwater buoyancy products from my home State of Maine. Flotation Technologies of Biddeford recently received the Manufacturing Excellence Award from the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, for ``superior manufacturing practices'' that have successfully propelled the firm into the international market. Flotation Technologies creates and manufactures syntactic foam buoyancy and polyurethane elastomer products for the offshore, oceanographic, and seismic industries, as well as for the U.S. military. Founded in 1979, the enterprise has been manufacturing syntactic foam longer than any other company in business today. This year, to meet the company's rapid expansion, Flotation Technologies relocated to a 45,000-square-foot facility in the Biddeford Industrial Park. The new facility will allow Flotation Technologies to install state-of-the-art automated production equipment that will triple production capacity. This pioneering company makes extraordinarily resilient products for extreme environments. Flotation Technologies' buoys are lowered miles below the ocean surface, where they face up to 10,000 pounds of pressure per square inch, equivalent to the weight of a truck. They are as dense as oak, yet still relatively lightweight, and the buoys can survive under the frigid polar ice in the Arctic and under the searing heat in West Africa. These high-quality products were even relied upon to help shoot the 1997 Oscar-winning blockbuster movie ``Titanic.'' Flotation Technologies began as a small family enterprise, primarily serving scientists engaged in oceanographic and earthquake research. In 2002, as energy prices rose sharply, interest in offshore exploration grew rapidly. Flotation Technologies' buoyancy products are crucial to support the miles of flexible piping needed to extract resources from the ocean floor. In the last few years, the company has become a major supplier of these products, and most recently, Flotation Technologies won a $4.1 million contract to build buoyancy modules for Frontier Drilling, a Houston oil company. Expansion into this business has been a rewarding endeavor, and Flotation Technologies is setting its sights on further growth. The firm currently employs 42 people in Maine, and they expect to add at least 10 more employees by the end of the year. Revenues are expected to hit $10.5 million this year, and management is aiming for $30 million in sales within 3 years. Flotation Technologies recently worked with the Maine MEP to develop a strategic business plan that dramatically improved the efficiency of its operations. The Maine MEP is part of a nationwide network of technical, manufacturing, and business specialists linked together through the U.S. Department of Commerce. By implementing the Maine MEP's streamlining techniques, the company was able to double sales for 2006. Despite such impressive growth, Flotation Technologies has remained in the hands of a tightly-knit group of family members. Tim Cook, the current president, is the son of the company's founder, David Cook. As Tim notes, his family has ``put it all on the line'' for this venture for nearly 30 years. I congratulate Tim and his family on their success and wish them well in the years to come. Their dedicated entrepreneurial spirit is very much a part of what makes our Nation great, and I am proud to have them in my home State of Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Social Security Administration, SSA, is currently facing nothing short of a crisis when it comes to processing disability claims. Indeed, SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue has called this issue his agency's most pressing challenge. Currently, there are over 756,000 individuals who are waiting for a hearing to have their claims adjudicated, and the average wait time is a staggering 512 days. That is the longest amount of time in SSA's history. In contrast, in 2001, disability applicants had to wait an average of 308 days for a hearing. While that was still far too long, individuals now have to wait 66 percent longer. Sadly, some people have died waiting for a hearing. To help the SSA process disability claims more quickly, I was proud that, yesterday, the Senate voted 88 to 6 to approve an amendment to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that Senators Bingaman, Baucus, and I offered to increase funds dedicated to the agency's administrative costs by $150 million. We believe that this added funding will help the SSA reduce its disability backlog and enable individuals to access the benefits to which they are entitled and need for their basic living expenses. Because of the financial strains on applicants and their families, it is simply unconscionable to have individuals waiting for upwards of 2 years before they receive ruling on their disability claims. We can and must do better--it is our moral obligation. Although I strongly believe that providing the SSA with additional resources is warranted, I would like to thank the two managers of the Labor-HHS bill--Senators Harkin and Specter--for working so hard to increase funding for the SSA and for supporting our amendment. It is notable that the underlying bill they brought to the Senate floor would have provided $9.72 billion for the SSA in fiscal year 2008, an increase of $426.4 million over fiscal year 2007 and $125 million over President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget. The fact is that we have underfunded the SSA for years and must begin to reverse this trend. Indeed, according to SSA data, one reason wait times for disability hearings have risen so precipitously is that between fiscal years 2001 and 2007, Congress provided on average $150 million less than President Bush requested for the agency. At the same time, Congress gave SSA more work, including the responsibility to review Medicare beneficiaries' income and determine whether they should be charged higher premiums or if they are eligible for assistance to pay for premiums and fees in the Medicare prescription drug program. I would note that last year, Congress had to include an additional $36.6 million in the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution just to prevent the agency from furloughing each of its employees for 10 days, as well as close offices around the Nation. Finally, I would also like to thank the Senate for unanimously adopting a second amendment on Monday that I offered to require the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate the SSA's plan to both reduce the disability hearing backlog and improve disability benefits processing. Senators Harkin and Specter presciently asked for the SSA to produce this report when the Appropriations Committee approved the underlying Labor-HHS bill. Commissioner Astrue submitted his Agency's plan to Congress on September 13. I believe it would be extraordinarily useful for GAO to look at the SSA's plan and make recommendations to make it even more effective. The bottom line is that we know that it is crucial that we ensure that the plan to rectify problems of disability processing will be productive. While the SSA has been among our most efficient agencies, this GAO evaluation will help ensure that the plan put in place will best use the funds we are acting to provide. Mr. President, in closing, I hope that conferees will retain the two SSA administrative costs amendments the Senate adopted so resoundingly this week in the forthcoming Labor-HHS conference report, so that President Bush may sign them into law. This Nation's disabled deserve nothing less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Moosehead Manufacturing Company, a small firm in Monson, Maine, that will soon be reopening its doors. For 60 years, Moosehead Manufacturing had been a thriving business that exemplified the quality of Maine production. Unfortunately, after facing tough challenges from the global economy earlier this year, Moosehead ceased production. With the help of new investors, the company recently announced that it will recommence production and hire 40 employees in Monson, continuing its legacy of providing quality furniture to the State of Maine and beyond. Moosehead Manufacturing specializes in producing exceptional Maine- made furniture. The company prides itself on the durable and hand- finished aspects of its products, which it offers to consumers at competitive prices. Not only does Moosehead Manufacturing provide valuable employment opportunities, it procures all of its production resources from within the State, helping Maine's economy. The furniture is built from hardwoods harvested from neighboring forests, cut in Moosehead's own saw mills, and dried in its own kilns. Moosehead has been described as ``an amazing corporate citizen'' by Tom Lizotte, a Piscataquis county commissioner. Moosehead Manufacturing was founded in 1947 by the Wentworth family. At its peak of production in the late 1990s, it was the largest privately owned furniture factory in New England, employing about 250 workers. Recently, increasing imports of cheap, foreign-made furniture have threatened Moosehead's business. In 2003, Moosehead Manufacturing joined a group of furniture makers nationwide in petitioning the Government to place duties on some of the furniture that China imports to the United States. I echoed their sentiments in a letter I sent to Secretary of Commerce Evans stating my deep concern with the impact Chinese imports were having on the small and midsized American companies fighting to compete. The problem reached a climax when Moosehead announced its closure in February 2007. The communities of Monson and Dover-Foxcroft, where the company maintained its factories, were dealt great blows with the loss of nearly 130 jobs. And while I was disappointed that Moosehead was forced to shut down its facilities, I fully supported trade adjustment assistance funds to workers who lost their jobs. However, three new buyers recently stepped forward to save Moosehead Manufacturing: Joshua Tardy, the minority leader of the Maine House of Representatives; Dana Connors, president of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce; and Ed Skovron, a financier from Rhode Island. Under the continued management of John Wentworth, Moosehead will soon resume production in Monson, much to the relief of Piscataquis County, and will return to making longlasting furniture in which Mainers can take pride. Moosehead Manufacturing's reopening is exciting for the economic prospects of both Monson and Maine. Not only does it provide necessary employment opportunities, but it also sets a precedent for continued, Maine-based manufacturing established on quality and durability in the face of an increasingly competitive global market. I wish the owners and employees of Moosehead Manufacturing Company continued success in the coming years. I look forward to its exciting return to Maine's business scene.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program. I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Clinton, on this important issue. Senator Clinton and I have been fighting for this program for the last 3 years, and we are committed to continuing to fight until this program is fully restored. The majority of Maine's neediest families have also had services taken away from them due to cuts over the past 2 years. In 2005, Even Start Programs in Maine served 168 families through 9 programs. Today, Even Start is only serving 57 families through 3 programs. This means that 66 percent of Maine families being served have lost Even Start services over the past 3 years. These families depend on Even Start for help in learning English, pursuing educational opportunities, and obtaining job skills. In a Texas A&M University Study, 2004-05, parents participating in Even Start were more often and better employed. The study found that employment jumped from 17 percent before enrollment to 51 percent after program completion, and wages increased by more than 25 percent. This program helps parents acquire important skills to be their child's first and most important teacher. In fact, Even Start complements other early childhood education programs such as Head Start and Reading First by providing the comprehensive family services that help children in these critical years. Even Start is also consistent with the parent involvement goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. The program supports parents to be effective advocates for their children.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Marnee's Cookies, a growing small business from my home State of Maine that recently opened its first retail store in Bath, ME. Marnee's Cookies, a premier gourmet cookie company, held the grand opening of Marnee's Cookie Bistro on September 28 to great fanfare. Originally operated out of owner Marnee Robinson's kitchen, the business is now based out of a 4,000 square-foot facility in downtown Bath, which serves as both a cookie factory and retail store. Baking from an early age, Ms. Robinson has developed and refined the quintessential cookie by combining the arts of baking and design. For years, family and friends have enjoyed her two signature cookies-- Nirvana and Serendipity--that became the genesis and impetus for her business. In 2005, Ms. Robinson's entrepreneurial dream became a reality when Marnee's Cookies was founded, offering 13 types of gourmet cookies. Originally begun as a home-based Internet company run solely by Ms. Robinson, the demand for her product quickly expanded into a booming business with loyal customers around the world, from Maine to California, and Paris to India. In fact, Internet orders were so strong that Ms. Robinson was working 18-hour days to ship cookies worldwide. As a result, her growing business needed a facility to accommodate the increasing demand. The expansion of Marnee's Cookies was made possible by a $150,000 community development block grant. These grants are awarded to small businesses that will, in turn, contribute to economic development and job creation. The city of Bath saw great potential in Ms. Robinson's business plan and applied for the grant on her behalf. I am confident the grant will be beneficial to Marnee's Cookies, enabling it to further expand its reach and create additional jobs and opportunities for Bath's residents. Marnee's Cookies is also to be commended for its active involvement in local community and charity events. Cookies are regularly donated to local events and nonprofit organizations ranging from the Bath Soup Kitchen to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Additionally, Marnee's Cookies holds an annual charity event on December 4--National Cookie Day--with a portion of all holiday orders donated to a local charity. These gracious acts of philanthropy cannot go unnoticed and are a shining example of a small business going above and beyond to serve the local community. Marnee's Cookies is truly a success story and a bright example of what small businesses can accomplish with measured expansion and consistent determination. I congratulate Marnee Robinson for her entrepreneurial spirit and for being an exceptional role model for Maine and the Nation. We at the Senate wish Marnee's Cookies all the best for many more successful years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a small company in my home State of Maine, run by a female service-disabled veteran, that has made remarkable strides in the information technology industry, and particularly in robotics. Penobscot Bay Media, LLC--known to most as Pen Bay Media--is headquartered in Camden, on Maine's beautiful coast, where it specializes in the development of information visualization solutions by using geographic information systems, GIS, interactive distance learning, and other similar technologies. For example, Pen Bay has developed a type of robot that has the capability to detect environmental hazards, thereby protecting first responders and potentially saving lives. A retired Navy officer who served in Vietnam, CAPT Ann S. Yahner helped found Pen Bay Media in 1999, along with current partners Stuart Rich, David Berez, and her husband Frank, a retired U.S. Marine. Today, Mrs. Yahner serves as president and general manager. I will never forget when, in response to her concerns over a ``brain drain'' in Maine, Mrs. Yahner sent a letter to MG John Libby, the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard, offering to employ qualified returning veterans from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan at Pen Bay. Overall, Pen Bay employs 28 people, and has nearly doubled its workforce since the beginning of 2006. Mrs. Yahner's determination to hire and partner with veterans is a solid example of the kind of consistent opportunity we need to extend to those who protect us so admirably. Pen Bay Media has a long history of successful project experience with government clients. It is one of 45 prime companies in the United States, and the only New England company to be awarded the Veterans Technology Services Government-wide Acquisition Contract. As a result of this esteemed designation, Pen Bay Media will be eligible to compete for a share of contracts worth $5 billion over the next 10 years. In addition, Pen Bay has received countless awards and accolades since its inception. Most recently, the Environmental Systems Research Institute, ESRI, honored Pen Bay with its prestigious Special Achievement in Geographic Information System's award. For embracing GIS technology through its work with the New York City Bureau of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, ESRI recognized Pen Bay for its ``extraordinary contributions to our global society.'' According to ESRI, Pen Bay stood out from more than 300,000 organizations worldwide that use GIS software to enhance its clients' safety. In its 8 years of operation, Pen Bay Media has excelled, finding a creative niche within one of the Nation's fastest-growing industries. What makes Mrs. Yahner's accomplishments all the more impressive is that, according to the Small Business Administration, only 32 percent of disabled veteran business owners are women. Ann Yahner's courageous military service and tremendous contributions to small business are commendable and a great lesson that we can all succeed. I thank Ann Yahner and everyone at Pen Bay Media for the crucial work that they do, and I wish them continued success and prestige in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution with my friend and colleague Senator Menendez concerning the devastating series of forest fires which ravaged much of Greece, especially in the Peloponnese, this past summer. Beginning in June, over 3,000 forest fires raged across the cradle of Democracy. Tragically, 9 people were killed in blazes in June and July, and 68 people lost their lives in the especially destructive fires between August 24 and September 4. The Greek economy ministry initially estimated that the fires caused 1.6 billion euros, or $2.2 billion of damage. Subsequent assessments have placed that figure as high as $5.4 billion. I am proud that, more than offering its sympathy, the U.S. has also offered its help to the brave people and government of Greece. According to the State Department, the U.S. Government has thus far contributed nearly $2 million in aid to Greece in response to the fires. The bulk of this aid was provided in a ``wildfire assistance package'' consisting of the deployment of a technical assistance team which arrived in Greece on September 1 representing the disciplines of: fire management, fire investigation, emergency management systems, burn area emergency rehabilitation, and ecosystem and watershed restoration. Additionally, the U.S. Government provided 3,000 complete fire suits for the national fire brigade. Americans have also stepped up to give privately to the victims of these terrible fires as well. Charities organized by Greek-American organizations and the Orthodox Church in the U.S. have already raised millions to aid the people and government of Greece in rebuilding and mitigating the economic loss resulting from the fires. It is essential for the Senate to both recognize and pledge its support for these efforts, as the connection between the U.S. Congress and the Greek people is not limited to the Greek Americans who have served as members, or the foreign policy issues debated in its halls. Rather, the very inspiration for the Congress as a legislative body are the democratic chambers of ancient Greece. More recently, the U.S. and Greece stood resolutely by one another in confronting the political and economic challenges of the 20th century, and are close partners in combating terror in these opening years of the 21st century. It is imperative that we continue to stand together in confronting this new challenge. On September 5, the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution to the one Senator Menendez and I have introduced today. These resolutions reflect that the myriad ties between our two countries, be they cultural, economic or geopolitical, comprise a bond that can and should only strengthen in the wake of this devastating tragedy. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the people and government of Greece at this critical moment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Senators Rockefeller and Hatch, for their vital and resolute spirit of bipartisan cooperation and tireless perseverance in crafting an agreement with House negotiators that will maintain health insurance coverage for 6 million children and reach nearly four million more. Their work demonstrates what we can accomplish when we set aside philosophical differences in order to do the right thing for children and their families. I am pleased that we reached a veto-proof majority with the previous cloture vote, which shows strong support for extending and building upon this landmark legislation. As we all know, the problem of the uninsured touches communities all across our country. Thankfully, we have made tremendous strides in dramatically lowering the number of uninsured children through SCHIP which, time and again, has proved to be both a successful program and a saving grace for millions of American families who otherwise simply could not afford to pay for their children's health care. The stakes could not be more monumental. The quality of the health care that one receives as a child can have dramatic implications later in life. And there is not a family in America who does not want to provide the most comprehensive health coverage possible for its children. While some may mistakenly characterize SCHIP coverage as a welfare benefit, what they may not realize is that nearly 90 percent of uninsured children come from families where at least one parent is working. Today, fewer than half of parents in families earning less than $40,000 a year are offered health insurance through their employer--a 9 percent drop since 1997. And for many working families struggling to obtain health care, if benefits are even accessible to them, the costs continue to rise, moving further out of their reach. In my own State of Maine, a family of four can expect to pay $24,000 on the individual market for its coverage. For most families, taking this path is unrealistic and unworkable, especially when factoring the cost of mortgages, heating bills, and myriad other financial pressures. That is why I am pleased that the compromise provides a significant increase in federal commitment into the SCHIP program. With lives literally hanging in the balance, we ought to be building on what works. As we move to reauthorize the SCHIP program, states not only require sufficient Federal funding to ensure that children currently enrolled in SCHIP do not lose coverage and become uninsured, they also require additional funding to enroll more uninsured children-- particularly the 11,000 children in Maine who are eligible but unenrolled. I am particularly heartened that the House and Senate negotiators recognized that dental care is not a ``luxury'' benefit--but one that is paramount to the healthy development of children. A guaranteed dental benefit was included in S. 1224, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, legislation I introduced with Senator Rockefeller in April. In addition, as members of the Finance Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I sought to improve the quality of dental care through the provision of an assured dental benefit for all SCHIP-covered children during the committee process. Chairman Baucus was instrumental in the inclusion of a $200 million dental grant program as a first step towards meeting our goal during the Finance Committee process. And I am pleased that we were ultimately able to see such a strong dental benefit in the package we are considering today. Most dental disease is preventable with proper care up front, but when a parent cannot access routine care for a child, taking that child to the emergency room is often their only recourse. Yet that option costs at least four times as much as seeing a dentist. Plus, the health care a child receives in the emergency room does not even resolve the underlying problem--they generally provide only pain relief and antibiotics for infection. The bill before us today provides States the choice to either provide a dental benefit as contained in the SCHIP statute or choose among three other coverage options--dental coverage equivalent to the coverage offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, dental option--the largest dental plan in the State--or the State employees dental plan with the largest enrollment of children. The compromise package also replaces the policy announced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last month that would essentially prevent state SCHIP programs from enrolling uninsured children from families with household incomes above 250 percent of the federal poverty level. To put this into better perspective, 250 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four is $51,625. As I illustrated before, families in Maine faced with purchasing a policy on the individual market could face a cost well in excess of $24,000 a year. If States such as mine were prevented from expanding eligibility over 250 percent of poverty, families with a clear, demonstrable need could be shut out. Families could potentially spend nearly half their income on health coverage yet still not qualify for assistance. That's why 2 weeks ago, Senators Kennedy, Smith, Rockefeller, and I introduced legislation to nullify these new restrictions. This compromise will rightfully block efforts to impose onerous and unreasonable restrictions on the States' efforts to reach every child requiring assistance--while at the same time making sure States with more generous income-eligibility levels are meeting their commitment to lower income children. I also want to speak briefly about the offset contained in this bill. Though some may vigorously disagree, I find that an increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate avenue to help finance health coverage for low-income children. The health complications caused by smoking-- for instance, the increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease as well as the clear relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked during pregnancy and low birth weight babies--could not be more evident. It is clear to me that investing in children's health, while at the same time discouraging children from starting to smoke in the first place, is the best form of cost-effective, preventative medicine. Regrettably, this week we will hear a litany of reasons why we shouldn't cover more children through SCHIP. Some will express concerns about the size and cost of the package. I would respond that it should inject a dose of reality on the magnitude of the problem. States have responded to the call of families who are struggling every day with the cost of health insurance and are assuming a tremendous burden in the absence of Federal action. In addition, we should bear in mind that this bill is $15 billion below the amount we provided for in the budget resolution. Again, this bill is the product of compromise. Some of us wanted to go further. Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation to reauthorize the program at the full $50 billion--a bill that garnered 22 bipartisan cosponsors. Although there were compromises made along the way on various policy positions, one point is not up for discussion--simply maintaining the status quo of current levels of coverage is unacceptable. And while the Congress and the White House argue over philosophical differences, children are either going without coverage, or their parents are financing their care on credit cards, hoping they can stay on top of their debt. We are the wealthiest Nation on earth, and if we are unable to provide health insurance and medical care to our young people, then what does that say about our values? Some of my colleagues will contend that the SCHIP reauthorization we are considering is the first step toward government-run health care and that we will substitute public coverage for private insurance. The fact is that this SCHIP program came into being ten years ago. We haven't seen that evolve from the SCHIP program. We didn't see it materializing into a government-run health care program, as many have alleged here today. It absolutely hasn't happened. What we did was identify a need and address it in a bipartisan manner. These claims ignore the fact that today, 73 percent of the children enrolled in Medicaid received most or all of their health care services through a managed care plan. In fact, America's Health Insurance Plans, AHIP, a national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies, has recently endorsed this legislation, stating ``it repairs the safety net and is a major movement toward addressing the problems that States and Governors have been trying to address, which is how to get access for children.'' The bill also helps shore up employer-based coverage by granting states the option to subsidize employer-sponsored group health coverage for families that find the coverage beyond their financial means. Some have argued that SCHIP should reduce coverage for adults, especially childless adults. While I believe that coverage for adults can have a clear benefit for children, both in terms of enrollment of children as well as the simple fact that health problems for a working parent can lead to economic insecurity for the family, this approach represents an area where we had to compromise. But I find it contradictory that the administration, which has been so vocal in its opposition to the cost and scope of the compromise package, granted the majority of the 14 adult coverage waivers granted over the past ten years and renewed a waiver for adult coverage in May! Some will argue that reauthorization should be attached to a larger initiative on the uninsured. We must acknowledge forthrightly that working families are having a difficult, if not wrenching, time finding affordable, meaningful coverage--coverage not just in name only. Access to affordable, quality health care is the No. 1 one domestic priority of Americans, and the public will hold us all--Republicans and Democrats alike--accountable on delivering that goal. That is why I have been engaged with my colleagues in an effort to address the critical issues of extending coverage, reducing costs, and revolutionizing care delivery. But while I agree with many of my colleagues that legislative action to solve the problem of the uninsured is long-overdue, children should not be kept waiting. We cannot defer the urgency of providing health insurance for our children while we continue to procrastinate on the issue of the uninsured. Frankly, I am outraged by the news that the President is considering a veto of this legislation. I believe this seriously misjudges the genuine concern Americans have about access to care, particularly for children. In a March New York Times/CBS News poll, 84 percent of those polled said they supported expanding SCHIP to cover all uninsured children. A similar majority said they thought the lack of health insurance for many children was a ``very serious'' problem for the country. SCHIP has been the most significant achievement of the Congress over the past decade in legislative efforts to assure access to affordable health coverage to every American. Today, as we consider this reauthorization, we must not undermine the demonstrated success of this program over the past decade. Compromise on both sides of the aisle helped us create this program ten years ago and hopefully a renewed sense bipartisan commitment will help us successfully reauthorize this vital program. I would strongly encourage the President to reconsider his short- sighted veto threat and work hand-in-hand with Congress to extend health insurance to countless, deserving children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.