Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Brewer Federal Credit Union for being named the City of Brewer's 2007 Business of the Year. Founded in 1960, the Brewer Federal Credit Union has continually expanded its operations to serve an increasing number of communities in the Brewer area. With slightly over 20 employees, two branches, ATMs throughout the region, and Internet banking services, the credit union aims to make banking simpler for its roughly 8,400 members. Additionally, the Brewer Federal Credit Union's monthly newsletter provides useful information to assist customers, including updated information, news, and financial tips. The city of Brewer recognized the Brewer Federal Credit Union for its outstanding service to the communities that it serves. Indeed, countless acts of generosity demonstrate well the commitment of the credit union to community service. During the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the credit union assists the Brewer Community Service Council in collecting nonperishable foods that are put together in baskets to be distributed to local families in need. When a student from the town of Orrington was selected for the People to People program, the Brewer Federal Credit Union helped the student collect old cell phones and used ink cartridges which, in turn, were given to local businesses for recycling, to help finance his trip to Australia. During the annual Brewer Days, a fun-filled celebration held in September, the Brewer Federal Credit Union sponsors specific events, including a block party and street dance. In a similar vein, the credit union has sponsored events like the Brewer waterfront winter festival. Finally, the credit union generously supports local youth sports leagues, as well as Brewer High School athletic programs, various student musical ensembles, and the Boosters Club. Helping others is clearly an integral part of the Brewer Federal Credit Union's equation for success. By providing a friendly and welcoming business atmosphere, combined with compassionate assistance to individuals and groups within the community, the credit union sets a truly remarkable example by leaving a positive mark on those whose lives it touches. The credit union's selection as Brewer's Business of the Year is a recognition of the positive impact that the credit union brings to the city and a cogent reminder of the appreciation of Brewer's citizens for a local business that goes above and beyond the call of duty. I congratulate the Brewer Federal Credit Union for its recent award and wish everyone at the credit union continued success in their kind endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the outstanding accomplishments of Windows on the Water, a popular restaurant from my home State of Maine. Windows on the Water's chef and owner, John Hughes, was recently awarded the National Restaurant Association Award for his active role in assisting the local community. Founded in June 1985, Windows on the Water has been a favorite of locals and visitors to the Kennebunk-Kennebunkport area for over 20 years. Known for its fresh seafood and made-from-scratch desserts, Windows on the Water boasts a diverse menu with something for everyone. Moreover, it is committed to preparing healthy meals for diners. As such, most of the cooking products used are either organic, all- natural, or sustainable. In its 22 years of business, Windows on the Water has received 27 awards for various accomplishments. As patrons of the restaurant will tell you, Windows on the Water is also renowned for its creativity. In addition to providing fresh, quality food, Chef Hughes frequently offers programs such as cooking class dinners, which include a multicourse demonstration and meal, combined with a question- and-answer session. Chef Hughes's National Restaurant Association award is truly something to be proud of. Dedicating his life to helping others, including by way of his culinary skills, Mr. Hughes cofounded the Community Harvest organization in 1999, a nonprofit community service group that provides food to those in need. The organization's motto, ``people loving people is the heart of the journey, the heart of our community,'' is exemplified well in Chef Hughes's work. Each Thanksgiving and Christmas, he prepares countless dinners for the community, which volunteers then deliver to local underprivileged households and individuals. Mr. Hughes began the home delivery service because he noticed that Meals on Wheels did not deliver on Christmas and Thanksgiving. While Chef Hughes routinely uses his cooking skills to benefit vulnerable members of his community, he is also at the forefront of numerous other community efforts. He leads an annual scholarship program for select local students who demonstrate a commitment to community service. Moreover, in keeping with his background as a chef, Mr. Hughes spearheads an annual scholarship program for recipients in the greater Kennebunk area who have displayed an interest in the culinary arts. Having begun his culinary studies at age 15, Chef Hughes recognizes that nurturing an ambition from a young age can lead to great success. Windows on the Water is not only a restaurant; it is also a fount of unbridled service to others, thanks to Chef Hughes. While Chef Hughes has reached the top of his profession, being appointed to the Master Chefs Institute of America, he still sees the crucial role that generosity and giving play in the livelihood of a community. I commend Chef John Hughes and everyone at Windows on the Water who set a valuable example for the Kennebunks, and for all of Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment that will reform the Small Business Administration's, SBA, historically underutilized business zone, HUBZone, program. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my top priorities is to champion our Nation's small businesses and to promote their needs and concerns. My amendment capitalizes on and enhances the HUBZone program, which helps to bring small businesses to distressed regions across our country. The HUBZone program stimulates economic development and creates jobs in urban and rural communities by providing Federal contracting preferences to small businesses. The SBA's most recent data shows the Federal Government met only 2.1 percent of its statutory 3 percent HUBZone agency-wide ``goaling'' requirement. HUBZone small businesses represent only $7.2 billion of the total $340 billion allocated toward small businesses in fiscal year 2006. My amendment would expand the reach of the HUBZone program. First, it would include, as a HUBZone, the communities impacted by a military base closed by a BRAC round. Under current law, only the military base itself qualifies as a HUBZone. My amendment would include surrounding communities which become economically devastated by the base closure. My amendment also requires the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to complete a feasibility study, with legislative recommendations, for addressing the issue of extending HUBZone status to rural impoverished regions that would otherwise qualify as a HUBZone region but for being located in a county with a metropolitan statistical area. It is imperative that we address this inequity that impacts rural regions across the country, including the Penobscot region in my home State of Maine. The fact is small businesses are the driving force behind our Nation's economic growth, creating nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs and employing nearly 51 percent of the private sector workforce. My amendment enhances the HUBZone program which creates more jobs and helps our Nation's poorest regions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I commend a Mainer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty in public service to our State and the Nation. On June 30 of this year, Mary McAleney retired from her position as district director of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Maine district Office after serving in that capacity for 9 dedicated years. Her retirement from this post is a loss to all of Maine's 151,000 small businesses. Mary has always worked with the best interests of Maine's small businesses in mind, and her efforts on behalf of our State's small firms has been widely praised. In March of this year, the Maine Small Business Development Centers named Mary their Small Business Champion for her tireless efforts to serve Mainers. Her commitment to, and enthusiasm for, small enterprises has impressed all who have had the privilege of working with her. I will never forget when, in the spring of 2006 following devastating flooding in York County, Mary helped to organize a tour for me of the damage. On very short notice, she made arrangements to visit numerous businesses affected by the flooding, rallying business leaders to stay optimistic and begin the recovery process. Over the years, Mary proved time and again that she could be relied upon in times of crisis to assist small businesses in need, and as a Mainer herself, she knew exactly how to be helpful, knew the right person to call, and found a way to get results. Mary's public service began with her work as a staffer in the Maine Legislature. Leaving Augusta, Mary came to Washington to work for former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, where she served as chief of staff. Prior to her appointment to the Maine SBA, Mary served as district director for the Massachusetts SBA from 1995 to 1998. Without any doubt, it is clear from the first time Mary meets anyone that Mary McAleney's passion is Maine! She grew up in eastern Maine, in the town of Vanceboro, where she undoubtedly learned the value of sustaining a rural economy, and realized the challenges many Mainers from rural areas of the State face in order to support a family. Throughout the years, Mary has demonstrated this zeal by her remarkable ability to work with people from all sides of the spectrum, because she is among them in spirit and determination. The State of Maine owes a debt of gratitude to Mary McAleney for the outstanding work she has done fighting for Maine's small businesses. While she will be sorely missed at the SBA, I know Mary will continue her distinguished service to Maine in innovative and beneficial ways. I wish my good friend continued success and offer my sincere appreciation for her devotion to Maine's small business community. Thank you, Mr. President, for affording me the opportunity to speak about this truly exceptional Mainer and American.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I honor Maurice ``Moe'' Dube whom I had the privilege to on August 14 welcome home to Maine and officially swear in as Maine's district director of the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA. I was incredibly honored to be able to celebrate Moe's appointment with him and his family in Lewiston-Auburn, where both of our roots run so deep. Moe's return to Maine is wonderful news for the numerous small businesses and manufacturers in our state who depend on the SBA and the valuable programs it administers. In my capacity as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have had the privilege of working with Moe during his previous service with the SBA and know that his experience, expertise, and dedication will be a true asset for Maine's robust small business community. Because our State so depends on small businesses and entrepreneurship for our economic livelihood, I have long believed that the district director position is one of Maine's most critical appointments. Indeed, according to the SBA, in 2005, Maine had an estimated 151,000 small businesses of which over 111,000 were led by self-employed entrepreneurs. Of the 40,000 Maine firms with employees, an overwhelming 97.5 percent were small businesses employing fewer than 500 employees. Clearly, Maine small businesses are the job creators and drivers of our economy, so it is critical to have a district director who will help our state make the most of the SBA's vital programs. In his new capacity as district director, Moe will, among other things, be responsible for the administration of the SBA business loan portfolio; the oversight of the Maine Small Business Development Center Network; the coordination of Maine's SCORE chapters; and oversight of the Women's Business Center at Coastal Enterprises, Inc. Although Moe will clearly have a lot on his plate as he takes the reins as district director, I am confident that his long experience at the SBA, which he joined in 1987, makes him eminently qualified. Moe began his SBA career as a liquidation loan officer in the SBA's Maine district office before moving to the business development division, where he was promoted to assistant district director for business development and later to deputy district director. His most recent assignment prior to relocating to Maine was as district director of the SBA's Massachusett district office. When Moe was with the Maine SBA, I and my staff had the pleasure of working hand-in-glove with him on a variety of issues on behalf of our State's small businesses. I can tell you firsthand that his comprehensive background, keen acumen, and tireless dedication will be outstanding assets for Maine's small business community. And perhaps most importantly, in an ideal ``one-two punch'' for our small businesses, Moe not only knows how to deliver SBA programs as effectively as possible--but Moe also knows Maine. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with Moe as he advances the SBA's agenda. I know Moe will make a fine district director, and I am so pleased that a man of his talents has accepted this position, which is so vital to Maine's economy. I look forward to working with him closely to ensure that Maine small businesses will continue to thrive and create opportunities for all Mainers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing of Roger Landry of Springvale, ME, and pay tribute to this former Maine State legislator and steadfast advocate for our Nation's veterans. Roger was one-of-a-kind individual who was truly a force of nature who allowed nothing to stand in the way of achieving results and helping others, and he had a unique ability to harness the compassion and empathy he felt so deeply to produce positive and tangible results that truly touched the hearts of so many. Whether serving his country as a highly decorated master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force for 23 years, providing a welcoming presence ceremonies to honor our returning troops, or fighting for better care for our heroic veterans, Roger was truly a benevolent force of nature who placed a premium on helping others, especially those servicemen and women who have given their all for this land. Those in our State extraordinary enough to have worn our Nation's uniform never had a better friend or ally than Roger. He carried his tireless compassion, disarming humor, and can-do spirit to the Maine House of Representatives where his impact was felt immediately and where he sought common ground to advance the public good. We owe him an exceptional debt of gratitude for his enduring devotion to his State of Maine which he loved. His service in the Military, in the State legislature, and as a citizen of Maine forged a legacy that should stand as an inspiration to us all--he will be greatly missed and forever remembered. Roger was a remarkable public servant and a dear friend--I will always cherish having known him. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with his wife Jane, his children/Darrin, Dean, and Dawn, his eight grandchildren, and the entire Landry family

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today o join Senator Kerry in introducing the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill which would reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee program. I appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Together, our primary purpose is to improve the Surety Bond Guarantee SBG program and ensure that more small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they require to compete and grow. Many surety bond companies refuse to bond small businesses because of the greater risks associated with underwriting new, unproven firms. Countless new businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets necessary to obtain a surety bond. Without bonding, small firms cannot secure the contracts they need to survive. For many small businesses, their inability to obtain surety bonds creates a barrier to entry which prevents them from competing in defense contracting, construction, services, and other markets. In order to reduce the risk to the surety firms issuing the bonds, the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible claims on bonds underwritten through the SBG program. Many small contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBG program and establish a bonding history. Over time, these businesses will out-grow the SBG program and will be able to obtain bonds in the regular, competitive marketplace. It is critical to understand that the number of participating sureties in the SBG program directly affects the number of small companies that can receive surety bonds. In fiscal year 2000, the SBG program had 28 participating surety bonding companies and issued 7,034 bonds to small businesses. As of fiscal year 2006, there were only 10 participating surety companies that issued 4,709 surety bonds. This downturn represents a 64 percent decline in the number of participating sureties and a decrease of 33 percent in the total number of bonds issued to small businesses. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and continue participating in the program. Our bill strives to address the reason behind the program's diminishing participation and increasing inability to help small businesses. To achieve that goal, our measure would 1. prohibit the SBA from underwriting a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already underwritten and approved the bond, 2. direct the SBA to promulgate regulations to allow surety companies to go to non-binding mediation with the SBA in order to resolve disputes over denied claims or other issues, 3. eliminate existing price controls, 4. require the SBA to be transparent in its fee structure, 5. clarify that Congress does not require the Surety Bond Guarantee program to be entirely self-funding or self-sufficient, and 6. raise the principal guarantee amount to $3 million. We are collaborating with the SBA to reverse the downward trend regarding participating sureties and boost the number of small businesses receiving surety bonding. To accomplish this goal, the SBG program is working to reduce approval times by bolstering the capacity of companies to submit underwriting applications and claim requests online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety bonding. These reforms, along with the necessary legislative changes Senator Kerry and I have proposed today, will help the program attract new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to secure sureties underwriting through the program. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the Surety Bond Improvement Act which we wrote after consulting with small business owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this pivotal program. Without these remedies, the number of sureties in the program will continue to fall as will the capability of small businesses to secure surety bonds. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a onerous barrier to entry and competition that they will be unable to overcome. I urge my colleges to work with Senator Kerry and me to assist small businesses by passing this crucial legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today o join Senator Kerry in introducing the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill which would reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee program. I appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Together, our primary purpose is to improve the Surety Bond Guarantee SBG program and ensure that more small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they require to compete and grow. Many surety bond companies refuse to bond small businesses because of the greater risks associated with underwriting new, unproven firms. Countless new businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets necessary to obtain a surety bond. Without bonding, small firms cannot secure the contracts they need to survive. For many small businesses, their inability to obtain surety bonds creates a barrier to entry which prevents them from competing in defense contracting, construction, services, and other markets. In order to reduce the risk to the surety firms issuing the bonds, the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible claims on bonds underwritten through the SBG program. Many small contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBG program and establish a bonding history. Over time, these businesses will out-grow the SBG program and will be able to obtain bonds in the regular, competitive marketplace. It is critical to understand that the number of participating sureties in the SBG program directly affects the number of small companies that can receive surety bonds. In fiscal year 2000, the SBG program had 28 participating surety bonding companies and issued 7,034 bonds to small businesses. As of fiscal year 2006, there were only 10 participating surety companies that issued 4,709 surety bonds. This downturn represents a 64 percent decline in the number of participating sureties and a decrease of 33 percent in the total number of bonds issued to small businesses. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and continue participating in the program. Our bill strives to address the reason behind the program's diminishing participation and increasing inability to help small businesses. To achieve that goal, our measure would 1. prohibit the SBA from underwriting a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already underwritten and approved the bond, 2. direct the SBA to promulgate regulations to allow surety companies to go to non-binding mediation with the SBA in order to resolve disputes over denied claims or other issues, 3. eliminate existing price controls, 4. require the SBA to be transparent in its fee structure, 5. clarify that Congress does not require the Surety Bond Guarantee program to be entirely self-funding or self-sufficient, and 6. raise the principal guarantee amount to $3 million. We are collaborating with the SBA to reverse the downward trend regarding participating sureties and boost the number of small businesses receiving surety bonding. To accomplish this goal, the SBG program is working to reduce approval times by bolstering the capacity of companies to submit underwriting applications and claim requests online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety bonding. These reforms, along with the necessary legislative changes Senator Kerry and I have proposed today, will help the program attract new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to secure sureties underwriting through the program. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the Surety Bond Improvement Act which we wrote after consulting with small business owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this pivotal program. Without these remedies, the number of sureties in the program will continue to fall as will the capability of small businesses to secure surety bonds. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a onerous barrier to entry and competition that they will be unable to overcome. I urge my colleges to work with Senator Kerry and me to assist small businesses by passing this crucial legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, as well as Senators Rockefeller and Hatch, for their visionary leadership and tireless perseverance in crafting an SCHIP package that has received so much bipartisan support. I also want to thank them for never losing sight of the single over-arching goal-- obtaining health insurance for uninsured children. I rise today to strongly support a Senate resolution I have filed with Senator Lincoln and a host of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle which contains a resounding and inescapable message: Congress must unite to address the small business health insurance crisis--this year. I am encouraged by the unprecedented level of constructive, bipartisan dialogue currently taking place on the issue of small business health insurance reform. The roster of support on our Small Business Resolution speaks volumes about its viability: Senators Baucus and Grassley, Kennedy and Enzi and Senators Ben Nelson, Durbin, Smith, and Crapo. This diverse, bipartisan group tells me that the will is there. We can get this done--if we don't retreat to partisan corners and if we work together and make tough compromises just as we have done on the SCHIP bill--which this body will soon likely pass--where we sat down, rolled up our sleeves, and worked together to fashion a consensus package. As past chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, if there is one concern I have heard time and again, it is the exorbitant cost to small businesses of providing health insurance to their employees. Health insurance premiums have increased at double- digit percentage levels in 4 of the past 6 years--far outpacing inflation and wage gains. Is there any question that the small business health insurance crisis is real? We could not be at a more pivotal juncture on this threshold issue. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, last year the average group- sponsored health insurance policy for an individual was $4,242--the average family plan cost $11,480. And the figures are dramatically worse for those purchasing health insurance in the individual market. For example, in my home State of Maine, a health insurance plan on the individual market can cost a family of four in excess of $24,000 per year. Funds which could be used for other expenses such as saving for college tuition or retirement security or a down payment on a home--not for one year of health care. This phenomenon perpetuates a cycle of spiraling costs and declining access as fewer and fewer small businesses offer health insurance to their employees. Only 48 percent of our smallest businesses are able to provide this workplace benefit--a 10 percent drop from 5 years ago. Clearly, it is time we started heading in the opposite direction. Of course, this is easier said than done as small group markets such as those in Maine have no real competition and represent major impediments. No competition means higher costs, and higher costs mean no health insurance. Making matters more challenging is the fact that across the country, the largest insurers now control 43 percent of the small group markets. In Maine, a sum total of four large insurers now control 98 percent of the small group market. So the issue isn't whether the United States has the greatest health care system in the world--we do. But with nearly 45 million uninsured in this country, our goal should be nothing less than providing health care access for all. It is all the more incumbent upon this Congress to consider every possible viable avenue and reach across the partisan divide to solve this crisis, an approach that reflects the undeniable will of the American people on this matter. That is why I have advocated for and championed Small Business Health Plan legislation which would allow small businesses to ``pool'' together across state lines to provide their employees with health insurance at significantly lower costs. It is an idea which is gaining growing support. A recent study published by the National Association of Realtors concluded that an overwhelming majority of voters--89 percent, including 93 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats--favor legislation that would allow small businesses to pool together to negotiate lower health insurance costs. I continue to believe that Small Business Health Plans are a logical solution to the small business health insurance crisis, and I thank Senator Enzi for all of his tremendous efforts in getting legislation passed through the HELP Committee last year, and for having them considered on the Senate floor for the first time ever. As we move forward in this debate, we must leave no stone unturned in our search for consensus solutions to this crisis as we seek to reform the small group and individual health insurance markets. We must address how to allow health insurers to provide lower-cost products to small businesses across state lines while maintaining the most widely accepted and necessary benefits and services. We must figure out how to ``rate,'' or price, these products--and also how and whether this can be done in a uniform manner, without jeopardizing consumer protections. Finally, we should examine ways to use the tax code as a mechanism for increasing access to health care and injecting competition into the state small group markets. In conclusion, Congress must consider small business health insurance reform legislation this year, in a bipartisan, comprehensive way that can secure significant consensus support. In the coming months, I look forward to a robust and productive debate on this issue in the Finance Committee. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize an outstanding small business from my home State of Maine that has established itself as one of New England's leading information technology engineering firms. Headquartered in East Machias, Superlative Technologies Inc., SuprTEK, provides effective information technology solutions and engineering services to the diverse clientele it has established during its 11 years in operation. As an 8(a) and HUBZone certified small business, SuprTEK supplies private industries, as well as local, State, and Federal Government, with support solutions in a wide variety of areas, including information assurance, network management, systems development, operation management, wireless solutions, and enterprise architecture. The 8(a) and HUBZone programs often allow small businesses, such as SuprTEK, greater access to Federal Government opportunities. The HUBZone program, in particular, benefits rural communities by ensuring the business itself, and a portion of its employees, reside in the HUBZone. By enabling each client to utilize its support solutions effectively and efficiently, SuprTEK demonstrates its strong commitment to improving its clients' businesses. Employing highly qualified business and technical specialists averaging almost 10 years of experience, SuprTEK demands high standards for themselves and their clients. SuprTEK has consistently fought to bring jobs and economic vitality to the Machias region and all of downeast Maine. With the closing of the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station in Cutler, and fears of the loss's effect on the local economy, SuprTEK was awarded a contract to build a first-of-its-kind Navy Human Resources Benefits Call Center in July of 2001. The employees at SuprTEK provided health, insurance, and retirement assistance to nearly 40,000 U.S. Navy civilian employees throughout the Northeast in 2001. Currently, 30 employees aid the full 186,000 member Navy civilian workforce worldwide. In May 2005, SuprTEK completed the construction of a new and improved facility in East Machias to house its call center. And in October of 2006, the U.S. Navy announced a new contract for SuprTEK's call center to continue providing these vital resources to the Navy through 2011. In 2005, the Army Surface Deployment and Distribution Command presented SuprTEK with its Small Disadvantaged Business Outstanding Achievement Award. This award is emblematic of the U.S. military's appreciation for the work that SuprTEK has done and continues to do. Having visited SuprTEK myself, I have seen firsthand the dedication and commitment of the employees at SuprTEK and the tremendous impact that they are having on the lives of the Navy's civilian employees. Furthermore, SuprTEK plans to expand its operation by creating a business park that would also include low-cost office space for light industry, such as manufacturers of clothing and household items. This is a welcome and reassuring sign for a region whose prosperity has suffered. I thank everyone at SuprTEK for the magnificent job they have done so far, and wish them luck in their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak today on behalf of the legislation that is pending before the Senate to provide health insurance to an estimated 3.2 million children in America who will undoubtedly stand to benefit from this legislation. I wish to voice my strong support as a member of the Finance Committee for the Baucus-Grassley reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I also extend my congratulations to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, as well as chairman and ranking member of the Health Care Subcommittee, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hatch, for their visionary leadership and tireless perseverance in crafting this package, which has received such broad bipartisan support on the committee--and hopefully on the floor as well--and never losing sight of the overarching goal of obtaining health insurance for uninsured children. I can well recall in the Senate more than 5 years ago when Senators Hatch and Kennedy originally authored the legislation that paved the way for this unprecedented program which was supported by the Federal Government in partnership with the States in recognizing that one of the most vulnerable populations in this country was left without health insurance. This really did engender strong support across the board in the Senate and in Congress, and in every State in the country it has been remarkably successful. That is why I think that record of experience should bode well for the passage of this legislation. As many of my colleagues know, Senator Rockefeller and I introduced separate SCHIP legislation earlier this year, a bill that is cosponsored by more than 22 Members of this body. Many of the elements of that legislation have been incorporated into the legislation that is pending before us today. Although there are some key components that are absent, I think overall the core issues that are so essential to bolstering a strong program for the future have been inserted in this legislation. This is a strong bipartisan bill, authored in a bipartisan fashion, and was reported out of the Finance Committee with an overwhelmingly strong support with a 17-to-4 bipartisan vote. Time and again, we talk about the value of setting partisan politics aside and working together to produce solutions for the problems confronting the American people. If there is ever a time to turn our words into action, that time is now. So the legislation today, while neither perfect nor ideal, represents a strong consensus in response to a growing epidemic in our Nation today, which is a lack of health insurance among working Americans of limited means. As many of my colleagues are aware, the SCHIP program is not for children below the poverty line. They are already covered by Medicaid. Rather, SCHIP provides fallback health coverage for children of working men and women above the poverty line who nevertheless have been unable to obtain even basic health care for their families, most often because of lack of health coverage at work and the prohibitively expensive cost of individual policies on the private market. In fact, nearly 90 percent of the uninsured children come from families where at least one parent is working and in households earning less than $40,000 per year, which is 200 percent of poverty, and fewer than half are offered employer-sponsored health insurance at work. This is a 9-percent drop since 1997. So, obviously, that is moving in a different direction, unfortunately, and that is because of the prohibitive costs that have been associated with health insurance plans recently. For many working families struggling to obtain health care benefits even accessible to them, the costs are moving further and further out of their reach. The anguish of those who work hard to make ends meet yet still cannot afford to pay for health coverage for their children is truly devastating. Parents without access to affordable health insurance for their children live in constant anxiety. They face decisions no parent would ever want to have to confront as to whether their child is really sick enough to go to a doctor. They worry every day about their children doing simple activities, worrying because they can ill afford the consequences of a broken arm or a sprained ankle. Their only alternatives is to ratchet up their credit card balances, often irrespective of mounting debt. That is why this SCHIP program has been such a saving grace for so many families. It has been the one remarkable program which has led to a substantial reduction in the number of uninsured. Some may say that $35 billion over 5 years, which is the estimated cost of this program, will only cover an additional 3.2 million children--that it will cost $2,188 per child. But I happen to believe this is just further illustration of how health care costs continue to spiral out of control. The staggering cost of an individual policy with reasonable coverage is a reality families without health insurance confront every day. Today, the income eligibility for the Children's Health Insurance Program in my State of Maine is 200 percent of poverty, $41,300 per family of four. An uninsured parent who wants to buy coverage for their child on the individual market with a $250 deductible and 20-percent coinsurance can expect to pay $8,777 a year. This should hardly be surprising given that a family of four seeking to purchase a health insurance plan on the individual market will typically pay in excess of $24,000 per year. That is $24,000 per year. So when people talk about the fact that this is going to cost $35 billion for 3.2 million children, that is a cost of $2,188, a price that no individual, no family could possibly hope to obtain to provide health insurance for their family. That is why this Children's Health Insurance Program is so essential and critical to working families. In 1998, a year after Congress passed this program, 14 percent of children in Maine were uninsured. Within 5 years, the number of uninsured in Maine dropped to 7 percent and has remained at that level. This is, at the same time, a dramatic improvement in health coverage as well as a definitive statement that a great deal more work remains if we are to address the critical issues of affordability and accessibility of health insurance, especially as they relate to health care for our children. That is why I am so pleased that the Baucus-Grassley bill before us provides a significant increase in Federal investment in the Children's Health Insurance Program beyond the reauthorization of the status quo because States not only require sufficient Federal funding to ensure that children currently enrolled in the SCHIP program do not lose coverage and become uninsured, but they also need additional funding to enroll more uninsured children. Most critically, this legislation increases the Children's Health Insurance Program coverage to children in households earning up to 300 percent of poverty level. That was one of the central pieces of the legislation Senator Rockefeller and I introduced earlier this year. It also adopts another key Rockefeller-Snowe component by ensuring coverage for pregnant women--a long overdue upgrade in the program that rightfully has gained broad support in this Chamber. I believe the Finance Committees's approach to SCHIP is a balanced, carefully considered package worthy of the Senate's support. I wish to address some of the opposition that has arisen to this bill because I think it is important to address some of these comments and complaints. While I acknowledge my colleagues' sincerity in searching for solutions to our overall national uninsured program and I, in fact, support some of the proposals they offer, I must assert that now is neither the time nor the place for attempting to move these legislative proposals. With the September 30 expiration date on SCHIP fast approaching, we simply must take care of children first. First, we heard the unfortunate veto threat issued by the White House, and I am dismayed by this stance because it seriously misjudges the concern Americans have about access to health care, especially for children and especially for this program. Year after year, poll after poll affirms that access to affordable health care is the No. 1 domestic priority of Americans. Moreover, in a March New York Times/CBS News poll, 84 percent of Americans surveyed said that they supported expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover all uninsured children. That was 84 percent of the American people, obviously across the political spectrum. By its very nature, it includes Republicans, Independents, as well as Democrats. A similar majority said they thought the lack of health insurance for many children was a very serious problem for this country. So to stand in the way of these efforts which are presented to the Children's Health Insurance Program demonstrates a stark disregard for the wishes of the American people. Let there be no mistake, I think the public would hold us all accountable if we failed to reauthorize this program but also to make future investments in this program. I think undeniably the problem deserves to be recognized. Some of my colleagues will say the SCHIP reauthorization is the first step toward Government-run health care and that we will substitute public coverage for private insurance. This is patently untrue, especially because most Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries receive coverage through the private plans that contract with their States. For instance, 73 percent of the children enrolled in Medicaid receive most or all of their health care services through a managed care plan. Far from scaling back private coverage, this bill actually shores up employer-based coverage by giving States the option to subsidize employer-sponsored group health care for families for whom coverage is cost prohibitive. Moreover, the bill targets incentive payments only to enrollment of low-income children under 200 percent of poverty, which is, as I said earlier, $41,300 for a family of four, who are least likely to have access to private coverage in the first place. Some others will argue that SCHIP could reduce or eliminate coverage for adults, especially childless adults. Although I believe that coverage for adults can have a clear benefit for children, both in terms of enrollment for children as well as the fact that health problems for a working parent can lead to economic insecurity for a family, I recognize the opinion of those who desire to place a greater emphasis on covering children, and that is why this compromise legislation phases out coverage of adults. I find it interesting, if not somewhat contradictory--I know the administration has been very vocal about the cost and scope of the legislation before us. But this is the same administration which has granted the State waivers to allow States to cover adults for the past 6\1/2\ years and just 2 months ago renewed waivers for adult coverage. Clearly, the trend from the administration was to grant State waivers recognizing the importance of insuring parents of uninsured children because, as we have seen time and time again, if a parent is insured, more likely the child will be insured as well and be part of the SCHIP program. Others may argue that the cost of this legislation is too high, given that the baseline program is $25 billion. But I also would respond that the $35 billion that is placed in this bill is $15 billion below the amount we provided in the budget resolution and fully offset. This is a direct product of the negotiations that occurred within the Finance Committee to reach a compromise and consensus across the political aisle, and I applaud them for the efforts they made. We know the legislation before us will insure 3.2 million. There is probably at least another 5 or 6 million children who may be uninsured. So we haven't addressed the problem in its entirety. I wish we could have gone the extra mile to do everything we could to reach all the children who are uninsured in America, but I believe this bill is the opportunity to push forward with the most important piece we can at this moment in time in reaching a consensus to address at least 3.2 million because it is $35 billion in addition to those who are already covered, which is an additional $25 billion. I know some would suggest this is another way of advancing comprehensive health care reform. I think there is no question we all desire to address the most grappling domestic problem we face, and that is the issue of the uninsured, of which there are more than 47 million Americans who now lack health insurance. That is certainly the most preeminent domestic policy issue of our time. But if we cannot begin with insuring our children, how can we possibly address the larger population? This is a problem we must tackle, undeniably. Unfortunately, many of the proposals that are being discussed have not obviously been vetted yet for consideration through the committee process, and I am concerned that ultimately it will affect this legislation before the Senate. For example, I have heard that possibly the Small Business Health Insurance Plan will be attached to the pending legislation. As the former chair and now ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, I have long championed and been an advocate for the Small Business Health Insurance Plan. In fact, I crafted my own legislation more than 4 years ago, so it is an issue I have advocated for a considerable period of time and clearly one that needs to be addressed. But I would hope we could consider that as a separate component. The fact is it deserves to stand alone in consideration, as we tried to do last year but, unfortunately, could not reach the 60 votes necessary to overcome the cloture vote. There is no question we ought to address that particular issue. At this moment in time, since we are nearing a deadline of September 30 with respect to the reauthorization of SCHIP, I think it is important we stay on track in the Senate and address the other issues related to health insurance at a later point in time. I hope Members of the Senate will set aside those amendments and give their strong support to this legislation. I think there is no question we have to work to achieve a consensus on health care as a larger question, without a doubt, as we were able to accomplish on this legislation which provides health insurance for uninsured and insured children in America. But I hope my colleagues will see the true benefits of this legislation and support this package that is before us today. I hope we will not be sidetracked with additional amendments, as I said, whether it is on the Small Business Health Insurance Plans or providing for tax credits or health savings accounts. I do think all those issues are critical and should be addressed in their entirety but not as part of this legislation that ultimately could erode the bipartisan support that has been developed for this critical piece of legislation before us today. I hope we will pass this bill and allow the States to increase the SCHIP eligibility up to 300 percent, which will be the first time that has been allowed by the Federal legislation. I think the data available demonstrates that drawing the eligibility line at 300 percent of poverty will help maximize the number of children we assist with this legislation. In Maine alone, for example, approximately three-quarters of uninsured children are from families with incomes at 300 percent of poverty or below. The Baucus-Grassley bill also provides States the option to provide health coverage for pregnant women, a policy that has garnered longstanding, well-deserved bipartisan support. The fact is, proper prenatal care can reduce the likelihood of having a preterm baby, and routine care for pregnant women can detect health conditions affecting the mother as well as the baby. Sometimes these medical problems can be addressed before the child is born. So I think this is an important adjunct to this legislation. I am also pleased the bill includes the Lincoln-Snowe amendment that was adopted in the committee on the development of pediatric quality measures aimed at reducing preterm births as well. Our country has one of the highest rates of infant mortality among industrialized nations. That is a disgrace in a land with our wealth and our means. Coverage of pregnant women, coupled with quality measures on reducing preterm birth, will help turn around those unacceptable statistics. Investing in good prenatal care saves money too. According to the March of Dimes, health care costs for babies born prematurely are nearly 15 times greater than for full-term babies. I hope the Senate will provide strong bipartisan support for this legislation. I think we should recognize the success of this program and what it has managed to accomplish over the last 5 years with strong Federal support. I think it is an ideal partnership with the States, which have been extremely successful and effective in the way they have administered this program. What is also important about this legislation is that we revised the formula so we do not penalize States that do an excellent job of reaching out and continuing to insure more and more children. We don't want to reward just the status quo. So we revised the formula to take into account the States' experiences and how they have been able to succeed in covering low-income, uninsured children so they do not see their allotment drop as a result of being so successful. That is the way it has worked in the past. If, for example, States have been very good at being able to insure many children in their States, many more than maybe some of the other States, they would lose part of their funding. So we have revised the formula so there isn't this perverse disincentive to cover more children. We should recognize success and make sure it is rewarded. Finally, I was disappointed, and I know the Chair has been a strong advocate for this as well, that we were not able to provide dental coverage for children. It is something I attempted in the committee, and it was included as part of the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation to address this issue. The chairman of the committee, along with the ranking member, agreed to include a $200 million Federal grant that is specifically targeted to States to boost their coverage of dental benefits. I am disappointed we don't have a guaranteed dental benefit because I think it is long overdue and is something we should recognize is a critical dimension to health insurance. We have known of so many examples of tragedies that have occurred and one most recently in Maryland, where a young boy died because he had an abscessed tooth. An extraction would have cost $100. He ultimately died. They spent more than $200,000 trying to save his life, but, unfortunately and tragically, they did not. Think about what might have been had he had dental coverage--simple dental coverage. Hopefully, we will be able to achieve some kind of support for a compromise. I know I am not satisfied with the fact that we don't have that guaranteed benefit, but I am pleased we do have a $200 million Federal grant as part of this program and that will be the beginning of that process of providing dental benefits. I do think, ultimately, we need to incorporate it as part of the underlying and fundamental package of health insurance. I thank the Chair and Members of the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue. I believe that in the long run we are taking a critical stand toward insuring more children in this country, and, hopefully, we can do more. I think the package before us is fiscally responsible. It provides for an offset with a 61-cent increase in the tobacco tax. I know there are those who do not support such a tax increase, but nevertheless, the 61-cent increase will help not only to completely offset the additional cost of this program of $35 billion, but it also will prevent nearly 1.9 million children from ever starting to smoke, it will help nearly 1.2 million adult smokers quit, it will prevent more than 900,000 smoking-caused deaths, and it will produce $43.9 billion in long-term health care savings. So even if an increase raises money in the short-term but levels off because, more importantly, fewer people will smoke, that is a win-win situation. I hope the Senate will look to the strong 17 to 4 vote coming out of the Finance Committee, which is indicative of the broad bipartisan support. Also, it is an example of what we can accomplish when we set aside our political differences in order to do the right thing for children in America. Compromise is essential, and that certainly has been the hallmark of this effort. We are poised to see a renewal of one of our most uniquely successful initiatives when it comes to a health insurance program for children. This will send a very strong signal to hard-working American families whom the Federal Government is prepared to provide the support to help their children and to help their families as they struggle to meet one of the basic necessities of their life. More importantly, I hope, we will reach the time when we will address the larger question of the uninsured in America because it is long overdue and is a vital necessity for millions and millions of Americans. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member on the Coast Guard's oversight subcommittee, I am pleased today to co-sponsor the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 28,000 calls for assistance, and saved nearly 5,300 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, acts of terror, and other national security threats. In 2004, the Coast Guard seized 287,000 pounds of cocaine, including over 20 tons in a single interdiction action, the largest drug bust ever recorded. They also stopped nearly 8,000 illegal migrants from reacting our shores. In addition they conducted 6,100 boardings to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to 4,400 pollution incidents. In today's post-9/11 world, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever securing the nation's coastline, waterways, and ports. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission catalogue continues today. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. The bill we introduce today would authorize funding at $8.3 billion for fiscal year 2008. This authorization will continue to allow the Coast Guard to perform non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection, as well as fund the necessary missions related to ports, waterways, and coastal security. It also includes funding to allow the service to continue replacing its rapidly aging assets so it can increase efficiency of its actions and reap the benefits of advances of modern technology and engineering. The Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has taken a significant toll on the ships, boats, and aircraft that the Coast Guard uses on a daily basis, putting additional strain on vessels that already collectively comprise the world's third oldest navel fleet. The Coast Guard is now 5 years into the acquisition phase of a program designed to recapitalize its aging infrastructure the Integrated Deepwater Program. In recent months, we have heard a litany of bad news regarding Deepwater, from the decommissioning of eight 123-foot patrol boats following a failed effort to extend them, to reports that Deepwater's flagship, the National Security Cutter, will not meet the specifications required by the Coast Guard. The service has taken numerous steps to rectify contractual shortcomings that have led to many of these problems, but much work remains to be done before the Coast Guard can regain the confidence of its overseers and the American public. This bill authorizes nearly $1 billion for Coast Guard acquisitions programs, a large sum to be sure. But Senator Cantwell and I, and the rest of the Coast Guard's oversight subcommittee will closely monitor developments with the program to ensure that the mistakes of Deepwater's past are not carried over into its future. This bill also includes a provision to increase the Coast Guard's ability to prosecute those engaged in illegal alien smuggling in the maritime environment. Under current law and practice, individuals have to be seriously injured or die in a maritime migrant smuggling event before the smugglers are faced with meaningful legal penalties. This allows organized groups of experienced smugglers to operate with near impunity, facilitating the entry of thousands of illegal immigrants annually. The Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act, contained within this bill would close this serious loophole at the frontline of our homeland security efforts. The bill also contains provisions vital to navigation security, including a requirement that the Coast Guard continue to operate the LORAN-C navigation system. Though advances in Global Positioning System technology have allowed our mariners to receive accurate, timely positioning data, many seafarers, particularly in the northern latitudes where GPS signals are less strong, still rely on LORAN signals as a back-up to their more modern systems, or in some cases, as a primary navigation aid. The service men and women of the Coast Guard do yeoman's work in support of our homeland security and to ensure the safety of the maritime domain, and this bill also contains provisions to help them in numerous ways. Provisions ensure the Government is providing adequate access to medical care for those stationed on remote islands; grants Coast Guard servicemen and women access to the armed forces retirement homes; and authorizes funding for additional facilities to improve their quality of life. In sum, this bill contains provisions too numerous to mention individually that support the Coast Guard's missions and enhance its ability to safeguard our homeland, our environment, and our maritime operations. I thank Senator Cantwell and the rest of my fellow co- sponsors for all their hard work on this bill, and I ask my colleagues in this body to join me in expressing support for the valiant men and women of the Coast Guard and this bill that will facilitate execution of their appointed missions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member on the Coast Guard's oversight subcommittee, I am pleased today to co-sponsor the Coast Guard Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 28,000 calls for assistance, and saved nearly 5,300 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, acts of terror, and other national security threats. In 2004, the Coast Guard seized 287,000 pounds of cocaine, including over 20 tons in a single interdiction action, the largest drug bust ever recorded. They also stopped nearly 8,000 illegal migrants from reacting our shores. In addition they conducted 6,100 boardings to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to 4,400 pollution incidents. In today's post-9/11 world, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever securing the nation's coastline, waterways, and ports. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission catalogue continues today. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. The bill we introduce today would authorize funding at $8.3 billion for fiscal year 2008. This authorization will continue to allow the Coast Guard to perform non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection, as well as fund the necessary missions related to ports, waterways, and coastal security. It also includes funding to allow the service to continue replacing its rapidly aging assets so it can increase efficiency of its actions and reap the benefits of advances of modern technology and engineering. The Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has taken a significant toll on the ships, boats, and aircraft that the Coast Guard uses on a daily basis, putting additional strain on vessels that already collectively comprise the world's third oldest navel fleet. The Coast Guard is now 5 years into the acquisition phase of a program designed to recapitalize its aging infrastructure the Integrated Deepwater Program. In recent months, we have heard a litany of bad news regarding Deepwater, from the decommissioning of eight 123-foot patrol boats following a failed effort to extend them, to reports that Deepwater's flagship, the National Security Cutter, will not meet the specifications required by the Coast Guard. The service has taken numerous steps to rectify contractual shortcomings that have led to many of these problems, but much work remains to be done before the Coast Guard can regain the confidence of its overseers and the American public. This bill authorizes nearly $1 billion for Coast Guard acquisitions programs, a large sum to be sure. But Senator Cantwell and I, and the rest of the Coast Guard's oversight subcommittee will closely monitor developments with the program to ensure that the mistakes of Deepwater's past are not carried over into its future. This bill also includes a provision to increase the Coast Guard's ability to prosecute those engaged in illegal alien smuggling in the maritime environment. Under current law and practice, individuals have to be seriously injured or die in a maritime migrant smuggling event before the smugglers are faced with meaningful legal penalties. This allows organized groups of experienced smugglers to operate with near impunity, facilitating the entry of thousands of illegal immigrants annually. The Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act, contained within this bill would close this serious loophole at the frontline of our homeland security efforts. The bill also contains provisions vital to navigation security, including a requirement that the Coast Guard continue to operate the LORAN-C navigation system. Though advances in Global Positioning System technology have allowed our mariners to receive accurate, timely positioning data, many seafarers, particularly in the northern latitudes where GPS signals are less strong, still rely on LORAN signals as a back-up to their more modern systems, or in some cases, as a primary navigation aid. The service men and women of the Coast Guard do yeoman's work in support of our homeland security and to ensure the safety of the maritime domain, and this bill also contains provisions to help them in numerous ways. Provisions ensure the Government is providing adequate access to medical care for those stationed on remote islands; grants Coast Guard servicemen and women access to the armed forces retirement homes; and authorizes funding for additional facilities to improve their quality of life. In sum, this bill contains provisions too numerous to mention individually that support the Coast Guard's missions and enhance its ability to safeguard our homeland, our environment, and our maritime operations. I thank Senator Cantwell and the rest of my fellow co- sponsors for all their hard work on this bill, and I ask my colleagues in this body to join me in expressing support for the valiant men and women of the Coast Guard and this bill that will facilitate execution of their appointed missions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate an exceptional small business from my home State of Maine that is enabling New England consumers to enjoy fresh, locally grown, and healthy tomatoes on a year-round basis. Located in Madison, Backyard Farms is a large-scale tomato producer that has invested over $20 million into what is now Maine's largest building and one of the world's most technologically advanced facilities. Backyard Farms, which operates the largest greenhouse in New England, employs 115 hard-working individuals who collectively yield an astonishing 1 million tomatoes per week--which adds up to 7,700 tons of tomatoes annually. With New Englanders consuming an average of 300 million fresh tomatoes per year, Backyard Farms has the potential to capture an extensive share of this market. Backyard Farms' tomatoes are certainly fresh, as it sells its product to stores less than 8 hours away. That means that tomatoes picked one day are on store shelves all across Maine and New England the next. In addition to its magnificent tomatoes, Backyard Farms is striving to make its facility a green--or energy efficient--building by using the most environmentally friendly technology available. The 25-acre greenhouse uses efficient technologies including rainwater reclamation, high-efficiency boilers, and thermal blankets to produce juicy tomatoes. Furthermore, Backyard Farms utilizes natural methods to grow its wonderful produce. Bees take care of the pollination, and tomatoes are kept healthy by implementing biological controls, such as parasitic wraps and ladybugs, rather than pesticides and fungicides. The work of those at Backyard Farms proves that conservation does not necessarily have to hinder effectiveness and efficiency. Backyard Farms prides itself on the quality of its product. On each box of tomatoes shipped to local stores, it is written, ``wicked good tomatoes from right nearby.'' This motto emphasizes Backyard Farms' local nature and its commitment to the community through its highly sustainable business practices. Backyard Farms plans to build 3 to 4 additional greenhouses on at least 17 more acres. This would allow Backyard Farms to increase its produce output to include cucumbers, peppers, eggplant, and culinary herbs. Such an expansion would have an immensely positive impact on the Maine economy by adding as many as 200 new employees. I look forward to the groundbreaking for this expansion, scheduled to occur later this month. It is particularly inspirational that Backyard Farms has proven that a region known for its cooler temperatures and short growing season can in fact expand its agricultural production by combining advanced technologies with an innovative entrepreneurial spirit. Backyard Farms provides us with a paragon of smart economic development. I commend chief executive officer Peter Sellew, cofounder Arie van der Giessen, and all of the employees of Backyard Farm and wish them continued success and prosperity in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we know, this administration has sought closer trade ties to a growing number of nations throughout the world. It asked the last Congress to consider four free trade agreements, and is currently negotiating at least that number of new agreements, in addition to the Doha round of the World Trade Organization. Yet, in its march to lower our tariffs on imported goods, we must be sure we are not selling our domestic businesses and their works short or-worse still--out. Last year saw a record U.S. trade deficit of $764 billion with the rest of the world. This includes bilateral imbalances with each of China, the European Union, and Japan. These are the latest figures demonstrating a steady slide of U.S. producers' market share in both the domestic and global markets. One of the most troubling features of the decline of America's trade profile is the dramatic reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs in recent years. Since 2000, America has lost approximately 3 million, or 17 percent of its manufacturing jobs. Maine has lost over 21,000 jobs, representing over 26 percent of our manufacturing workforce. Other States have also found it difficult to retain these high-wage, high-benefit jobs as manufacturing operations move overseas and our demand for foreign-made goods surges. Unlike job losses due to technological advances, which are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization that sacrifices foundational domestic industries is the chosen policy of government. We therefore have an obligation to ensure that the costs are not borne by these most vulnerable workers alone. That is why Senator Baucus and I--along with Senators Wyden, Coleman, and Stabenow--are today introducing the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007, which will reauthorize and expand the TAA program to cover new groups of Americans disfranchised by trade liberalization, as I had proposed in previous Congresses. First among these are service workers and firms. While TAA currently aids U.S. citizens who lost their manufacturing jobs to trade, it fails to address the growing problem of those finding themselves unemployed as a result of foreign outsourcing, also known as offshoring. It is already bad enough that Americans who had careers in the service sector--which proponents of free trade argue should benefit from trade liberalization--are finding themselves out of work. But it is simply Kafkaesque that such service workers, now unemployed due to policies that were supposed to benefit them, would not be eligible for aid under TAA. That is why the legislation we are proposing today critically extends TAA to cover service workers and firms. It is similarly illogical for workers to be excluded from the TAA program simply because they lost their job due to multilateral trade liberalization carried out under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, as opposed to a bilateral trade agreement, such as a free trade agreement. Yet, thousands of workers remain ineligible for TAA benefits under current law because they happened to lose their job to trade competition from a WTO member such as China or India rather than an FTA partner country. Accordingly, our legislation extends TAA to cover Americans who have been adversely affected by trade liberalization with WTO member, such as China, who are often the worst offenders of international trade rules. Of critical importance to Maine and other coastal States is TAA's failure to cover fishermen who have suffered from the adverse effects of trade liberalization. U.S. fishermen have seen their livelihoods dissolve due to the reduction of duties on foreign fish and seafood imports. Yet, TAA benefits remain unavailable to these hard-working Americans under the current program. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation which will make such fisherman eligible for TAA. An additional concern with the present TAA program is its failure to address the inability of displaced workers in communities that have few jobs to offer. In small towns, including many in Maine, where the livelihood of the local economy often depends on one industry, one plant, or one company that is suffering under trade liberalization, the closure of that business is sure to cause economic ruin and devastation of individual lives. Accordingly, the legislation we are introducing today would create a program to address economic dislocation in entire communities negatively affected by international trade and provide readjustment assistance to such communities. As we approach the expiry of authorization for both the TAA program and trade promotion authority, I view inclusion of relief for trade-affected communities as a necessary component of any comprehensive trade package.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we know, this administration has sought closer trade ties to a growing number of nations throughout the world. It asked the last Congress to consider four free trade agreements, and is currently negotiating at least that number of new agreements, in addition to the Doha round of the World Trade Organization. Yet, in its march to lower our tariffs on imported goods, we must be sure we are not selling our domestic businesses and their works short or-worse still--out. Last year saw a record U.S. trade deficit of $764 billion with the rest of the world. This includes bilateral imbalances with each of China, the European Union, and Japan. These are the latest figures demonstrating a steady slide of U.S. producers' market share in both the domestic and global markets. One of the most troubling features of the decline of America's trade profile is the dramatic reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs in recent years. Since 2000, America has lost approximately 3 million, or 17 percent of its manufacturing jobs. Maine has lost over 21,000 jobs, representing over 26 percent of our manufacturing workforce. Other States have also found it difficult to retain these high-wage, high-benefit jobs as manufacturing operations move overseas and our demand for foreign-made goods surges. Unlike job losses due to technological advances, which are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization that sacrifices foundational domestic industries is the chosen policy of government. We therefore have an obligation to ensure that the costs are not borne by these most vulnerable workers alone. That is why Senator Baucus and I--along with Senators Wyden, Coleman, and Stabenow--are today introducing the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007, which will reauthorize and expand the TAA program to cover new groups of Americans disfranchised by trade liberalization, as I had proposed in previous Congresses. First among these are service workers and firms. While TAA currently aids U.S. citizens who lost their manufacturing jobs to trade, it fails to address the growing problem of those finding themselves unemployed as a result of foreign outsourcing, also known as offshoring. It is already bad enough that Americans who had careers in the service sector--which proponents of free trade argue should benefit from trade liberalization--are finding themselves out of work. But it is simply Kafkaesque that such service workers, now unemployed due to policies that were supposed to benefit them, would not be eligible for aid under TAA. That is why the legislation we are proposing today critically extends TAA to cover service workers and firms. It is similarly illogical for workers to be excluded from the TAA program simply because they lost their job due to multilateral trade liberalization carried out under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, as opposed to a bilateral trade agreement, such as a free trade agreement. Yet, thousands of workers remain ineligible for TAA benefits under current law because they happened to lose their job to trade competition from a WTO member such as China or India rather than an FTA partner country. Accordingly, our legislation extends TAA to cover Americans who have been adversely affected by trade liberalization with WTO member, such as China, who are often the worst offenders of international trade rules. Of critical importance to Maine and other coastal States is TAA's failure to cover fishermen who have suffered from the adverse effects of trade liberalization. U.S. fishermen have seen their livelihoods dissolve due to the reduction of duties on foreign fish and seafood imports. Yet, TAA benefits remain unavailable to these hard-working Americans under the current program. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation which will make such fisherman eligible for TAA. An additional concern with the present TAA program is its failure to address the inability of displaced workers in communities that have few jobs to offer. In small towns, including many in Maine, where the livelihood of the local economy often depends on one industry, one plant, or one company that is suffering under trade liberalization, the closure of that business is sure to cause economic ruin and devastation of individual lives. Accordingly, the legislation we are introducing today would create a program to address economic dislocation in entire communities negatively affected by international trade and provide readjustment assistance to such communities. As we approach the expiry of authorization for both the TAA program and trade promotion authority, I view inclusion of relief for trade-affected communities as a necessary component of any comprehensive trade package.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Intelligent Spatial Technologies, a company founded by a tremendously innovative young entrepreneur from my home State of Maine. Intelligent Spatial Technologies of Orono is a software and data company that was launched in 2003 by Christopher Frank. The successful operation of Intelligent Spatial Technologies is a beacon to all young entrepreneurs who dream of starting up their own business. Mr. Frank founded Intelligent Spatial Technologies while a student at my alma mater, the University of Maine at Orono. While there, he worked with an all-University of Maine alumni team to grow and develop an innovative idea he dreamed of to provide location-based information on-the-go. After graduating from the University of Maine, Mr. Frank applied to become a tenant in the Target Technology Incubator. Supported by the University of Maine, the Community College System, and the Maine Small Business Development Centers, the Incubator offers early-stage tech-based companies the training and tools necessary to make their ventures a success. With the help of Target Technology Incubator and over a million dollars in Federal and State research grants, Mr. Frank was able to realize his idea and transform it into a new, vibrant business in the State of Maine. Today, Intelligent Spatial Technologies is a leading developer in the fast-growing industry of location-based services, which is a particularly remarkable achievement when one considers that the current market value for GPS-related products is an estimated $12 billion. Notably, Intelligent Spatial Technologies was able to successfully market its first product, the iPointer, to the University of Maine. The iPointer is an advanced device that empowers users to explore a defined area by pointing at landmarks and receiving feedback in the form of text and audio-visual images over a wireless Internet connection. The University of Maine used the product to provide prospective students with informative, custom tours to familiarize them with the university campus. The iPointer is the cornerstone of Intelligent Spatial Technologies and a unique contribution to location-based services industry. It is terrific to see that Mr. Frank wants to expand the use of his creative technology to more everyday uses, such as use with digital cameras, cellular phones, and hand-held computers. Before concluding, I would be remiss not to mention that Christopher Frank was named Maine's Young Entrepreneur of the Year by the U.S. Small Business Administration in 2006. His cutting-edge technology and stellar leadership is highly respected in the Bangor community. Not only does Mr. Frank show leadership as president and founder of Intelligent Spatial Technologies, but he also is a founder of FUSION Bangor, an organization which aims to engage young people in community leadership through forums, meetings, and similar events. Mr. Frank has shown that no matter what your age, you can have an impact on both the business community and the local community. The State of Maine is incredibly proud of Intelligent Spatial Technologies. To see a college student realize his business dream-- while still a student, no less--is always inspiring. I wish Christopher Frank and everyone at Intelligent Spatial Technologies continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I express my profound gratitude to my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for his unsurpassed and exemplary leadership on so many defense and national security issues throughout his distinguished career. I rise to speak to the monumental, consequential matter before us with regard to the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in Iraq, and specifically to express my support and cosponsorship of the amendment that is presently before the Senate that has been authored by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. I thank them for their hard work and outstanding leadership on this historic matter. I recognize that none of us arrives at this debate lightly. In my 28- year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Indisputably, a myriad of deeply held beliefs were expressed on those pivotal matters--some in concert, some complimentary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for and love of our great Nation. Without question, that remains so today with the various proposals that are before us. I remind my colleagues in the Senate that the framework that has been embraced in the amendment authored by Senator Levin and Senator Reed is one that is not without precedent throughout our history in the actions taken by this institution in previous conflicts. So it is not a departure from precedent but very consistent with precedent in the past. Where we make decisions to impose our imprint on a longstanding conflict is obviously of critical consequence to this Nation. In my view, 4\1/2\ years following the commencement of our military operations in Iraq, and 6 months after the troop surge was announced and was initiated, we now stand at the crossroads between help and reality with respect to the Iraqi Government's ability or even willingness to achieve national reconciliation for its own country and its own people. The time has come to address that reality. The time has come to determine if our military and our strategy should continue on the basis of perpetually hoping the Iraqis will succeed or whether they actually possess the desire and the drive to place their national interest above their sectarian ambitions. In my considered examination and analysis, taking into account my visits to Iraq--most recently in May--the facts and information we already have had at hand, the record of serial intransigence on the part of the Iraqi Government regarding its inability to forge the political underpinnings essential for national reconciliation, and the fact there is universal agreement that a military solution alone is not possible, I believe a dramatic and fundamental change in our strategy in Iraq is essential and that Congress must require it based on that reality. Because while the hands of time have now advanced in what has been described as sort of the 11th hour for Iraqi political reconciliation, in fact, in many ways, I see progress has moved in a regressive fashion. We can no longer afford to place more American service men and women in harm's way to instill a peace that the Iraqis seem unwilling to seek for themselves. I do not come to this conclusion casually or abruptly. Far from it. Indeed, following the President's address to the Nation in January, in which he unveiled a ``New Way Forward in Iraq'' through primarily increasing troop levels, I was among the first to publicly oppose that plan. In my view, it addressed neither the root cause of the violence in Iraq that was fueled by longstanding and deep-seated sectarian conflicts, nor the failure of the Iraqi Government to either demonstrate the will or capacity to quell that sectarian violence. It is incumbent upon the Iraqi people and their Government to work toward their own national unity. At that juncture, when we were about to assume even greater risk on behalf of the future of Iraq, there was, frankly, no compelling evidence that the Iraqis were willing to assume similar risks for a united future that only they can truly secure. Therefore, I then joined my colleagues Senators Biden, Levin, and Hagel, in introducing a Senate resolution that opposed the surge and instead would have urged the President to increase our counterterrorism efforts, maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, promote regional stability through a renewed diplomatic offensive, and continue the training of the Iraqi security forces--all without withdrawing precipitously. I said at the time that it was essential for the Congress to make our voices heard in a policy that has significant implications not only for our Nation and the Middle East but, indeed, the world community. I believe our bipartisan proposal would have offered a clear expression for a new strategy that would have compelled, in the words of the resolution itself, ``the Iraqi political leaders to make the political compromises necessary to end the violence.'' Unfortunately, the measure did not generate sufficient support at the time, and now we find ourselves confronting a similar situation only 6 months later. In May, I traveled again to Iraq, where the good news was mixed and the bad news was deeply disturbing. First and foremost, I want to say our troops were performing superbly and courageously and in an extremely complex and challenging environment. I am certain every Member of this body would agree when I say the men and women fighting for this great Nation are integral members of the most professional and dedicated military the world has ever witnessed. So there is no question--no question--of our troops' heroic commitment. Indeed, I witnessed the improved security situation, as has been mentioned many times on the floor, in Ramadi. I was part of the first congressional group to travel into downtown Ramadi and visit a joint security post. In that city, the tribal sheiks and the Iraqi forces have begun to work in conjunction with our own forces to fight a common enemy, and that common enemy is al-Qaida. We know the success, and clearly it was a model of success and cooperation. However, we also were told that what worked in Anbar might not necessarily work in the other provinces, that the threat varies from province to province, as we have already discovered. The threat varies from city to city, and the threat is multidimensional. What we have witnessed in Anbar where the ``enemy of my enemy is also my enemy'' does not necessarily suggest that it can apply across the board and may not be a model that can be replicated in other provinces and in other cities. Certainly, we should use it where it can work and can be applied, but certainly it may not be possible in all of the other areas within Iraq, because the common enemy within al-Anbar was, of course, al-Qaida. So I happen to believe it is abundantly apparent that we must send a strong message to the Iraqi Government that by linking our continued strategy in Iraq to the level of progress they made in attaining the political benchmarks they themselves had agreed to were so central to securing an Iraqi Nation. After all, by the President's own account, the Baghdad Security Plan, the surge, was designed to be the final window of opportunity for the Iraqis to institute those benchmarks. They had to know it was a window we would close if they did not act with commensurate urgency. That is why, upon my return from Iraq, I, along with my colleague, Senator Bayh from Indiana, introduced bipartisan legislation that would have required the Iraqi Government to meet the benchmarks outlined by the Iraq Study Group and the administration. If the Iraqi Government failed to do so, our bill directed that the surge forces would redeploy and the remaining forces would transition to a far more limited mission that included the training and equipping of the Iraqi forces, assisting the deployed Iraqi brigades with intelligence, transportation, air support, and logistics, protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, and maintaining rapid reaction teams to undertake counterterrorism missions against al-Qaida. I argued in May that we are at a critical juncture and that we were at a point where we must be pivoting toward a policy that responsibly brings us to a resolution on the future course of America's involvement in Iraq. I believed at the time the bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Senator Bayh would place the onus and the burden rightfully where it belongs--on the Iraqi Government and its political leaders to enact and to implement the benchmarks that, again, they themselves had pledged to achieve. Our legislation would have required General Petraeus to come before the Congress and testify 14 days following his September report and, if the political benchmarks had not been met, to submit a plan on phased redeployment of the surge troops associated with the Baghdad security plan and a change in mission for all of the troops, consistent, again, with the recommendations set forth by the Iraq Study Group report. Senator Bayh and I crafted the bill with the intent of garnering bipartisan support and called for not a mandate but, rather, an objective of completing the transition and redeployment 6 months later--which would have been approximately the end of March 2008. As I said at the time, we cannot further countenance political intransigence on the part of the Iraqi Government, while our men and women are on the front lines confronting sacrifices and making sacrifices each and every day. I am pleased that many elements of the Snowe-Bayh bill were included in the measure that was drafted by our esteemed colleague Senator Warner, which was incorporated into the supplemental legislation which the Senate passed on May 24 and that became law, which established the 18 benchmarks to evaluate the performance of the Iraqi Government. Yet here we are now, nearly 2 months from the passage of that supplemental, and coming off the bloodiest 3-month period for American troops since the war began, with 331 deaths in that period, and more than 600 since the surge began. And yet, as last week's White House interim report only underscored, there still has been no significant progress on any of the political benchmarks whatsoever. Among other failures, they have not passed an oil law which fairly divides oil revenue among Iraq's ethnicities and religious sects. Last month, the largest Sunni political grouping announced its four Cabinet ministers were boycotting the Government and were withdrawing its 44 members from the Parliament, and there was a ``no confidence'' vote scheduled to take place even against Prime Minister Maliki. Perhaps most incredible, given this stunning lack of progress, is the fact that the Iraqi Parliament will not be in session for the entire month of August. That effectively means that the Iraq Parliament--even assuming--even assuming--they can attain the required quorum to conduct their affairs given that in the past 2 months, the Parliament has had considerable difficulty obtaining a quorum and has rarely had enough members in the chamber to vote--has another 3 weeks remaining in session before the month of September arrives; all the while, our soldiers continue the battle, while the Iraqi Government will take a recess, having failed to make significant progress on any of the benchmarks included in the supplemental bill we passed 2 months ago. These stark facts have led our top military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials in Iraq to the conclusion that the political reconciliation which the surge was meant to facilitate is not being undertaken. Last month, General Petraeus stated that conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces. Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and chief of the National Intelligence Council, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee last week, stated that while the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made ``limited progress on key legislation,'' that ``scant common ground between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds continues to polarize politics.'' Mr. Fingar even stated that the majority Shiite bloc that Maliki heads ``does not present a unified front.'' Let us also consider the words of key Iraqi leaders themselves, which are even more disturbing and telling. Indeed, Iraq's foreign minister said recently that ``These are not your benchmarks, these are our goals. Why do you make it yours?'' This, despite the fact that American troops are selflessly risking and giving their lives to make it possible for such officials to achieve the political, economic, and security benchmarks which were agreed to in September of last year by Iraq's Political Committee on National Security and reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on October 16. So, frankly, given statements such as these, it is not a surprise that, last week, the administration issued a report--the interim report--that found that the Iraqi Government had failed to accomplish any of these political objectives the Iraqis themselves set. Let's look at those deadlines and those goals and the track record. In October 2006, provincial elections law, a date for provincial elections, and a new hydrocarbon law--the new oil revenue-sharing law-- were supposed to be approved. But that deadline came and went. A debaathification law and a provincial council authorities law were to be enacted in November. But that deadline came and went. In December they were to approve a law demobilizing and disarming the militias. But that deadline came and went. The Constitutional Review Committee was to complete its work in January, independent commissions were to be formed in February, and a constitutional amendments referendum was to be held, if required, in March. But those deadlines also came and went. What does it suggest when a U.S. official--and actually it is incorporated in the interim report--recently observed that political reconciliation is largely trailing any advances in security--calling it a ``lagging indicator''? But if the Iraqi Government were truly serious, shouldn't concrete steps toward reconciliation be the predictor--shouldn't it be a leading indicator--of an inner fortitude and intention to accomplish those benchmarks that are supposed to be happening in tandem with the surge--if the surge was designed to be that window of opportunity, to give the breathing space to the Iraqi Government to create the conditions on the ground that will allow them to make the political compromises so essential to unifying their country? Security will only come through a belief by the Iraqis that they will have a political and economic future. That is why Iraq's fate is in the hands of the Iraqi leadership and its Government. The only way they will be able to secure their future is to be able to quell the sectarian violence, to integrate the minority population, to create power-sharing arrangements to diffuse the sectarian conflicts. In that way only can Iraq maintain its integrity as a unitary state. So I ask, if the intelligence community assessed in February that ``with the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities affecting the political scene the prospects for reconciliation are bleak''--that is the intelligence community's assessment--and General Petraeus stated in March, ``there is no military solution'' and that ``a political resolution . . . is crucial,'' and the general is quoted in the Air Force Times last month saying ``counterinsurgency is roughly . . . 80 percent political,'' as codified in his own counterinsurgency manual--and the interesting part about that is in that manual General Petraeus states that the host nation has to win it on its own, and that is exactly what the surge was all about; it was to allow them to accomplish those key political goals that would demonstrate to the Iraqi people they had a government that was representative of all the people and not just a few--and the Iraqi Government has failed to accomplish these political benchmarks that were established by their own leadership and the Government of Iraq, then doesn't it make sense to begin to choose an alternative course? Because it is difficult to see the wisdom of this current strategy without holding the Iraqis accountable, the time has come to stand up and to speak out on behalf of the American people to say that the current strategy is unacceptable and the moment has arrived to change that direction. That is why I have joined with Senators Levin and Reed on a bipartisan basis because in my view, given the record of demonstrated inaction on the part of the Iraqi Government, we are now beyond nonbinding measures. That is what we have accomplished in the last 6 months. We considered nonbinding measures. But now we are a mere 2 months from General Petraeus's September report, with no demonstrable evidence to suggest political progress. What time is more important than now, as we consider the pending Defense authorization bill, to maximize our voice and opportunity to send an unequivocal message that if the Iraqis fail to chart a different course politically, then we will chart a different course militarily? The fact is, America requires more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation. We must see demonstrable results. That is why we are at this critical juncture. That is the answer to why now and why wait until September. Because given all we know, I happen to believe we cannot lose precious time in delivering an unmistakable message that the Iraqi Government must take the consensus-building measures necessary for reconciliation. For those who characterize this bill as tantamount to a precipitous withdrawal, let me say it is neither precipitous nor a withdrawal. I urge my colleagues to read the legislation, to read the amendment that has been drafted, to actually look at the language. I think it would be worthwhile, because I have heard mischaracterizations of what this legislation would accomplish. This legislation would result in redeployment, a change in mission, and reduced forces, but it does not suggest--it does not require--a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, it does not do that. It would reduce our troops and change our mission, beginning 120 days after passage, while specifically allowing the troops to remain for critical missions such as counterinsurgency and attacking al-Qaida, providing force protection, as well as training the Iraqis--again, goals that are very consistent with the Iraq Study Group. I think it is very important for Members of the Senate to read--to actually read--the language which has been incorporated in the amendment that is pending before the Senate, because it requires a very different mandate than has been described here on the floor of the Senate. It is not a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, it allows the discretion to maintain troops by the commanders in order to complete those missions as described in the amendment that would allow us to continue to train the Iraqis and to fight al-Qaida. Some of my colleagues have also opined that this proposal will limit the President's ability to conduct the war on terror. Last week we heard the President state that we are working to defeat al-Qaida and other extremists and aid the rise of an Iraqi Government that can protect its people. Well, again, this amendment rightly does nothing to detract from that objective. In fact, as I said, the amendment defers to the commanders on the group to determine the number of troops and forces necessary to fight al-Qaida. Specifically, the amendment empowers the Secretary of Defense to deploy and maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq to engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al-Qaida- affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations, which encompasses maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity against terrorist groups, including those backed by foreign countries. So that is the reality of the language which has been included in this amendment that is pending before the Senate--not as some have described. Furthermore, this measure would not take effect until 120 days after the passage of this legislation--after the passage of the Defense authorization. Let me note that in the last 4 years, the earliest approval of the National Defense Authorization Act occurred on October 17. That was the earliest date in which it became law in each of the last 4 years. So this isn't rash. This is reasoned, and this is responsible. Indeed, the language crafted by Senator Hagel in the amendment also seeks to internationalize our effort by calling on the U.N. to appoint an international mediator in Iraq and that the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, which has the authority of the international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq, and include them in the political process. This mediator will seek to bridge the divide between the competing sects to bring stability to Iraq and prevent a spillover into a civil war. The Levin-Reed amendment specifically states it shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purposes of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. As the Baker-Hamilton report concluded, Iraqi political accommodations can be achieved only within a constructive regional framework supported by the international community, a statement that I believe highlights the necessity now in the United States to refocus its policy, its leadership, and its resources on directly helping the Iraqis to establish an inclusive political framework to begin to diffuse the violence. Finally, to those with concerns about the April conclusion date included in the Levin-Reed amendment, let me also point out this is not an arbitrary date the Congress imposed but, rather, it reflects the reality on the ground. The ability to maintain this large force in Iraq becomes virtually impossible because of the overall size of the Army. We cannot sustain current troop levels in Iraq indefinitely. General Peter Shoomaker, the prior Army Chief of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March that sustaining the troop increase in Iraq beyond August would be a challenge, he said. In fact, Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April that our ground forces, the Army in particular, are ``broken'' or in danger of ``breaking.'' The reality is that without significantly changing the force structure or employing a ``different force mix,'' we must begin to redeploy. The bottom line is this is a defining moment. It is a defining moment for America's policy in Iraq and it is a defining moment for the Senate--indeed, the entire Congress--as to whether we are now prepared to assert our legislative prerogatives and authorities that are not without precedent, as I said earlier, to direct a different course and to alter our strategy--a strategy that reality warrants and demands. The decision before us is one of grave consequence because it is a matter of war. It demands that we look past the rhetoric and the partisanship which often enshrouds and clouds many of the most significant issues of our time, and that is certainly true with respect to this war. We expect passion to run high, but I hope it doesn't create the inability on the part of our collective wisdom and desire to do what is right and what is best for our country and for the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines each and every day performing magnificent sacrifices, as we all well know, with the loss of lives we have experienced in each of our States across this country. Frankly, if it weren't for those men and women, you know, we wouldn't be the greatest Nation on Earth, because they have woven the fabric for greatness for this country throughout the generations. So I would hope that at this moment in time, we can rise to the occasion and that in spite of the spirited debate, we can come together to try to resolve this major question, because that is what the American people want. That is what my constituents want in the State of Maine. They are hoping and praying we can come together and unite and to do what is right for this country at this most challenging and vexing and consequential moment in our Nation's history. I hope we can live up to the moniker of the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body, because certainly that moment is upon us. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I pay tribute to Myron Pierce of South Paris, ME, as he is honored by Joshua L. Chamberlain Camp No. 69--Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and the Western Maine Veterans Advisory Council. Through the years, Myron Pierce has demonstrated a selfless and stalwart commitment to his family, his community, and his country. Born in Bethel, ME, the oldest of eight children, Myron began his military career at the age of 19, serving in the Army National Guard and was activated to full-time duty the following year stationed at Camp Blanding, FL. By 1942, he was a machine gunner with the 12th Bomb Group and led night patrols that uncovered the presence of German troops, earning him a Silver Star. From 1941 to 1945, he fought with the 103rd Infantry of the 43rd Division, also known as Winged Victory, and was wounded in combat in North Africa. During the Korean War he rejoined the Maine Army National Guard. While in that theater, he led 27 consecutive night combat patrols in Iron Triangle near Pork Chop Hill, where a Chinese unit ambushed the 2nd Infantry Division and he endured grenade shrapnel. He and two others were the only survivors of that fateful night. Through the remarkable span of his distinguished 30-year military career, Myron received countless military medals and rose through the ranks from private to company commander, then to operation officer, and finally battalion commander. He also served as assistant commandant for the Army Reserve Officer School--all commendable distinctions. Upon retiring from the military, for the next 26 years, Myron focused his dedication in the classroom as an educator. Never wavering on his sense of duty, he continued his service to his country by reaching out to students on matters of patriotism, flag etiquette, and the Voice of Democracy. As a teacher at the Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School, he spearheaded a local chapter of the Distributive Education Club of American, DECA, a cooperative program working with local area businesses and high school students teaching them business and marketing skills as well as how to be a contributing and productive member of the community. Myron worked in conjunction with the State of Maine to construct a Veterans Home for the Oxford Hills area veterans. As a tireless advocate on behalf of veterans, in July of 1995, he was successful in his mission to bring the Western Maine Veterans Home to South Paris. Again, ever-vigilant in his contributions to his fellow veterans, he was appointed by Maine Gov. John R. McKernan to the board of trustees for Maine Veterans Homes and was reappointed to serve a second term by Gov. Angus King. A testament to his motto, ``We are here to service the community,'' in 2004, Myron Pierce was presented with the well-deserved Oxford Hills Chamber of Commerce Community Service Award. I want to offer my heartfelt best wishes and deepest appreciation to Myron Pierce for his extraordinary service and sacrifice to his community and to our Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2007. This crucial legislation will protect small businesses from payroll tax fraud and provide them with greater security when working with IRS registered payroll service providers. By way of background, let me say that in the fall of 2003, small businessman Roger Cyr, owner of the Lily Moon Cafe in Saco, Maine, learned that he was the victim of payroll tax fraud and that he owed $52,000 in back taxes. He was one of a number of small business owners in Maine who were forced to pay their payroll taxes twice after an unscrupulous payroll provider ran off with their tax deposits instead of making the required payments to the Internal Revenue Service. Unfortunately, this type of payroll fraud is not unique to my State of Maine, with instances of malfeasance occurring in Georgia, Texas, Utah, Iowa, Maryland, New York, and elsewhere throughout the U.S. It is unconscionable that these small business owners, are required to pay their payroll taxes twice. This additional and unexpected expense can drive these companies out of business. But let me be clear, these egregious examples of payroll fraud hide the fact that most small businesses use payroll providers that are honest, meticulous, and trustworthy. The majority of payroll tax agents pay their clients' taxes accurately, and on time, providing outstanding service as they help their clients with a myriad of complicated tax and accounting issues. Consequently, the organizing principle behind the bill I introduce today is to safeguard small business owners from afew dishonest payroll providers, and to shield the honest payroll providers from the bad actors in their industry. To that end, this legislation contains a number of provisions designed to guard small business owners against fraud. These provisions include increasing IRS oversight of payroll service providers, creating a separate section of the Internal Revenue code that will govern the payroll industry, defining the responsibilities of payroll tax deposit agents, and requiring all agents to register with the IRS or be penalized. The bill also penalizes payroll providers that collect, but fail to make, required tax payments by extending section 6672 penalties to all payroll tax agents. Additionally, payroll clients will also be informed of their continued liability for all of their payroll taxes as well as their obligation to periodically verify that their payroll taxes are paid in full. Now, I recognize that the new regulations will be more costly for small payroll companies to implement than for large payroll companies. In order to keep client protections in place, while providing small payroll services providers with some reasonable flexibility, the bill offers a choice. Payroll providers can either obtain a surety bond, or comply with quarterly third-party certifications. Surety bonds can be very difficult for many small businesses to obtain. Consequently, instead of bonding, many small payroll service providers prefer the targeted quarterly certification option, which ensures that payroll agents are depositing clients' tax funds completely and on time. Small payroll agents assert that the certification process actually provides their clients with greater fraud protection than a surety bond because the certification verifies the payroll agent's sound financial practices quarterly, while a surety boud only requires an annual audit. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I understand how critical it is to defend our small business owners from tax fraud. Enacting these provisions will help protect small companies in Maine, Utah, Georgia and in each of our states, from the very few dangerous payroll providers that would steal their clients' payroll taxes. At the same time, this bill recognizes that small payroll tax agents must be provided flexible and reasonable regulatory options that offer real protection to their clients. This legislation contains both strong safeguards and small business flexibility. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to help create a buffer for our small businesses from devious pay roll tax agents by increasing IRS oversight and protections as contained in this bill. I hope my colleagues will strongly support the Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2007.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today, with Senator Kerry, to introduce the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill improves the programs and resources available to our Nation's veteran entrepreneurs and the small businesses that employ our veterans. Thank you, Senator Kerry, for working so closely with me on this bipartisan legislation and for your long standing commitment to our Nation's veterans. This bipartisan measure 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. It is truly critical that all of our fellow Senators, on both sides of the aisle, continue to collaborate on our veterans' behalf and support swift passage of this legislation. In October 2003, I requested a Congressional Budget Office Report entitled ``The Effects of Reserve Call-Ups on Civilian Employers.'' That report, issued in May 2005, highlighted the problems that our nation's small businesses face when their owners or key employees are ``called up'' to serve in defense of our Nation. In response to that report's findings, I offered two bills to improve the resources and programs targeted to these veterans and small businesses. Those bills, S. 1014, the Supporting our Patriotic Businesses Act, and S. 3122, the Patriot Loan Act of 2006, were the genesis of S. 904 that I introduced earlier this year. Similarly, Senator Kerry has an established history of working on these issues, and the Small Business Committee on January 31 held its first hearing of the 110th Congress regarding programs to assist veterans and reservists. In recent years, our Nation's Guard and Reserve forces, which I collectively refer to as reservists, have selflessly answered the call to duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there have been over 425,000 reservist deployments, including nearly 3,000 from my home State of Maine, to those two countries since September 11, 2001. With the majority of nongovernmental reservists either being self-employed or working for small businesses, it is easy to see that veteran entrepreneurs and small businesses are profoundly and disproportionately impacted by these deployments. As our reservists answer our Nation's call to duty, we must similarly fulfill our obligations to help protect their livelihood back home. In addition to addressing this responsibility, our legislation includes other broad provisions to help our Nation's veteran entrepreneurs across the board. 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 preapplication process so businesses can be prepared, in advance, to apply for an MREIDL and includes a provision allowing a businesses up to 1 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. Second, the measure also includes a national reservist enterprise transition and sustainability provision. This provision would allow the SBA to award grants to entities that assist businesses with preparing and implementing a business strategy to cover the period of time that the owner is called-up on active duty through 6 months after that owner's date of return. Third, our bill would 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. Finally, 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. Our legislation is not a silver bullet, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today, with Senator Kerry, to introduce the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill improves the programs and resources available to our Nation's veteran entrepreneurs and the small businesses that employ our veterans. Thank you, Senator Kerry, for working so closely with me on this bipartisan legislation and for your long standing commitment to our Nation's veterans. This bipartisan measure 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. It is truly critical that all of our fellow Senators, on both sides of the aisle, continue to collaborate on our veterans' behalf and support swift passage of this legislation. In October 2003, I requested a Congressional Budget Office Report entitled ``The Effects of Reserve Call-Ups on Civilian Employers.'' That report, issued in May 2005, highlighted the problems that our nation's small businesses face when their owners or key employees are ``called up'' to serve in defense of our Nation. In response to that report's findings, I offered two bills to improve the resources and programs targeted to these veterans and small businesses. Those bills, S. 1014, the Supporting our Patriotic Businesses Act, and S. 3122, the Patriot Loan Act of 2006, were the genesis of S. 904 that I introduced earlier this year. Similarly, Senator Kerry has an established history of working on these issues, and the Small Business Committee on January 31 held its first hearing of the 110th Congress regarding programs to assist veterans and reservists. In recent years, our Nation's Guard and Reserve forces, which I collectively refer to as reservists, have selflessly answered the call to duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there have been over 425,000 reservist deployments, including nearly 3,000 from my home State of Maine, to those two countries since September 11, 2001. With the majority of nongovernmental reservists either being self-employed or working for small businesses, it is easy to see that veteran entrepreneurs and small businesses are profoundly and disproportionately impacted by these deployments. As our reservists answer our Nation's call to duty, we must similarly fulfill our obligations to help protect their livelihood back home. In addition to addressing this responsibility, our legislation includes other broad provisions to help our Nation's veteran entrepreneurs across the board. 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 preapplication process so businesses can be prepared, in advance, to apply for an MREIDL and includes a provision allowing a businesses up to 1 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. Second, the measure also includes a national reservist enterprise transition and sustainability provision. This provision would allow the SBA to award grants to entities that assist businesses with preparing and implementing a business strategy to cover the period of time that the owner is called-up on active duty through 6 months after that owner's date of return. Third, our bill would 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. Finally, 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. Our legislation is not a silver bullet, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2007. This crucial legislation will protect small businesses from payroll tax fraud and provide them with greater security when working with IRS registered payroll service providers. By way of background, let me say that in the fall of 2003, small businessman Roger Cyr, owner of the Lily Moon Cafe in Saco, Maine, learned that he was the victim of payroll tax fraud and that he owed $52,000 in back taxes. He was one of a number of small business owners in Maine who were forced to pay their payroll taxes twice after an unscrupulous payroll provider ran off with their tax deposits instead of making the required payments to the Internal Revenue Service. Unfortunately, this type of payroll fraud is not unique to my State of Maine, with instances of malfeasance occurring in Georgia, Texas, Utah, Iowa, Maryland, New York, and elsewhere throughout the U.S. It is unconscionable that these small business owners, are required to pay their payroll taxes twice. This additional and unexpected expense can drive these companies out of business. But let me be clear, these egregious examples of payroll fraud hide the fact that most small businesses use payroll providers that are honest, meticulous, and trustworthy. The majority of payroll tax agents pay their clients' taxes accurately, and on time, providing outstanding service as they help their clients with a myriad of complicated tax and accounting issues. Consequently, the organizing principle behind the bill I introduce today is to safeguard small business owners from afew dishonest payroll providers, and to shield the honest payroll providers from the bad actors in their industry. To that end, this legislation contains a number of provisions designed to guard small business owners against fraud. These provisions include increasing IRS oversight of payroll service providers, creating a separate section of the Internal Revenue code that will govern the payroll industry, defining the responsibilities of payroll tax deposit agents, and requiring all agents to register with the IRS or be penalized. The bill also penalizes payroll providers that collect, but fail to make, required tax payments by extending section 6672 penalties to all payroll tax agents. Additionally, payroll clients will also be informed of their continued liability for all of their payroll taxes as well as their obligation to periodically verify that their payroll taxes are paid in full. Now, I recognize that the new regulations will be more costly for small payroll companies to implement than for large payroll companies. In order to keep client protections in place, while providing small payroll services providers with some reasonable flexibility, the bill offers a choice. Payroll providers can either obtain a surety bond, or comply with quarterly third-party certifications. Surety bonds can be very difficult for many small businesses to obtain. Consequently, instead of bonding, many small payroll service providers prefer the targeted quarterly certification option, which ensures that payroll agents are depositing clients' tax funds completely and on time. Small payroll agents assert that the certification process actually provides their clients with greater fraud protection than a surety bond because the certification verifies the payroll agent's sound financial practices quarterly, while a surety boud only requires an annual audit. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I understand how critical it is to defend our small business owners from tax fraud. Enacting these provisions will help protect small companies in Maine, Utah, Georgia and in each of our states, from the very few dangerous payroll providers that would steal their clients' payroll taxes. At the same time, this bill recognizes that small payroll tax agents must be provided flexible and reasonable regulatory options that offer real protection to their clients. This legislation contains both strong safeguards and small business flexibility. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to help create a buffer for our small businesses from devious pay roll tax agents by increasing IRS oversight and protections as contained in this bill. I hope my colleagues will strongly support the Small Business Payroll Protection Act of 2007.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I congratulate Kids Crooked House, a tremendously innovative small business from my home State of Maine, which recently won Yahoo's Ultimate Connection Contest on June 25. As a result, Yahoo will provide the company with a marketing prize package worth $100,000. The Kids Crooked House of Windham crafts custom playhouses for children throughout the country. What makes the Kids Crooked House so special is the attention paid to detail in creating the playhouses. These playhouses are by no means run-of-the-mill: each one is crafted based on the buyer's specification and design, and all are unique. They range from brightly colored houses with twisted roofs and walls to playhouses based on cartoons or movies. Glen Halliday, the owner of Kids Crooked House, opened his business in 2004 after facing a typical parental dilemma; namely, how to get kids away from the television and computer, and engaged in more outdoor activity. After searching for an affordable, yet original, playhouse for his children, he was unsatisfied. Mr. Halliday decided to take it upon himself to create a playhouse with an innovative twist. He designed a playhouse that was brightly painted, with oddly shaped sides and crooked windows. In light of his childrens' delight with the playhouse, Mr. Halliday determined that his product could appeal to numerous other children nationwide. Just last year, Mr. Halliday brought his idea to the Yarmouth Clam Festival in Maine, where the company received the Directors Choice trophy and garnered first place for the best small business float in the annual parade. Winning Yahoo's Ultimate Connection Contest opens the door for the Kids Crooked House's expansion. Mr. Halliday and operations manager Jeff Leighton are meeting with Ivanka Trump, daughter of Donald Trump, and several marketing executives for lunch in New York City, where they will be able to discuss the business and gain valuable advice on how to grow in the future. Over the next year, Kids Crooked House will continue to receive input and consultation from marketing officials. What is most exciting about this opportunity is Mr. Halliday's future plans for the company. Mr. Halliday is looking to increase employment by adding more carpenters and to expand sales worldwide after receiving calls from throughout Europe and as far away as Pakistan. He hopes to begin production of ``crooked'' dog houses, but his ultimate goal is to build complete playgrounds for hotels and resorts. Clearly, Kids Crooked House has demonstrated a commitment to quality craftsmanship, which has not gone unnoticed. The company works by a mantra of ``If a kid can dream it, we can build it.'' What a wonderful perspective. It is always a pleasure to see small businesses with such a dedication to children, and having a company that fills such a specific niche in Maine is a boost to our State. The upcoming year will be an exciting and beneficial one for Kids Crooked House, and I wish everyone associated with the business continued success and many more smiling childrens' faces.