Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation to encourage the deployment of next generation wireless services in rural areas. Cell phones have become a vital part of so many lives. Today, there are more than 200 million wireless subscribers in the United States alone, a subscribership that continues to grow. This burgeoning success makes it all the more imperative that we foster an environment where this technology and future wireless advancements can flourish and thrive. As we consider the myriad issues affecting this debate, we must bear in mind that along with mobility, convenience and safety, cell phones today engender countless additional benefits from access to information, global satellite positioning, to entertainment. While wireless phones have been rapidly adopted by the general public, wireless service faces flaws that could hinder further adoption. I can tell you from firsthand experience how frustrated it can be when I am at home in Maine when I cannot get cellular service. Something must be done in order to improve advance the capability of wireless service that people across my State and others are relying on in increasing numbers every day. We must be vigilant in safeguarding our smaller communities from remaining under served and strive to ensure that they are taken into account as the Federal Government shapes policy in response to this changing technological landscape. As many of my colleagues are well aware, wireless services, such as cell phones, handheld devices, and some Internet services use frequencies on the radio spectrum to transfer voice and data from one user to another. It is the job of the service provider to convert these airwaves into the valuable services that consumers demand. The quality of service in a given place depends on how much investment the service provider has put into infrastructure. More urban locations tend to have better service because the return on investment is much higher because of the concentration of customers. This reality does not mean that rural areas are left without service. Viable business models exist that can sustain service in these more remote locations. Oftentimes smaller, local wireless companies can serve these areas better than nationwide service providers. But one of the greatest barriers to entry in the wireless industry is acquiring a spectrum license in which a service can be operated. Companies bid billions of dollars for rights to be one of the Nation's most critical technological resources. The digital television transition is on the verge of releasing new spectrum into the marketplace, the much-anticipated 700 megaHertz spectrum auction. While I am grateful that the Federal Communications Commission has stated its intention to auction off the spectrum in licenses that cover both large and small geographic areas, without this consideration, smaller companies will be unable to compete in the bidding process. That is patently unacceptable. The bill I introduce today aims to address this problem by reiterating to the Federal Communications Commission the necessity of protecting smaller communities during the 700 MHz spectrum that will be auctioned as a result of the digital television transition. In the final auction rules, the FCC must divide some of the frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so that local and regional wireless companies can have an opportunity to compete in the bidding process. The proper balance of large and small licenses will encourage the deployment of advanced services throughout all parts of the United States. This bill is not meant to circumvent the expertise or purview of the Federal Communications Commission, nor call into question its intentions. It merely directs the FCC to use its acumen and good offices to develop a plan that will benefit the entire Nation. Rural America deserves the same benefits of wireless technologies that are available in urban areas. This act gives those best able to serve remote areas the required tools to deploy those services.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Vessel Conveyance Act, a bill which would prevent inappropriate transfers of surplus United States vessels to nongovernmental organizations. It has recently come to my attention that two decommissioned U.S. Coast Guard ships that had been conveyed in legislation to a certain charitable organization are no longer being used for the purpose explicitly stated by law. In fact, the ships are no longer in the organization's possession. Unaware of the costs affiliated with maintenance of the ships, the recipient found itself unable to afford the upkeep. Against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, the charity sold first one, and then the second ship, and pocketed the proceeds, which totaled $415,000. Though the U.S. General Services Administration has a process in place for disposal of surplus vessels, I understand the value of dedicated vessel conveyances under certain circumstances. But we must recognize that these assets are the property of the American people, and they represent a significant investment of public funds. When Congress acts to convey such valuable items to a private entity, it also conveys the responsibility to use the vessel for a specific purpose. In cases where that responsibility has not been carried out, we must be able to seek recourse, and this bill would provide that tool. Specifically, this legislation would expressly prohibit the recipient of a conveyed vessel from either selling it, or using it for commercial purposes. It would require the Administrator of the GSA to monitor conveyed vessels the same way he monitors ships dispersed under the standard GSA process to ensure that they are being used appropriately, and it gives her the power to reclaim the ship if she determines that those conditions have been violated. The bill would also eliminate the possibility of transfer to an organization lacking sufficient financial stability to maintain a given vessel. Finally, it includes civil enforcement provisions making recipients liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day that they are in violation of their conveyance agreement. On the rare occasions when Congress determines that a certain asset is uniquely suited to assist a worthy and capable organization, I do not oppose a legislative conveyance. But I will not allow any organization to fleece the American taxpayers by biting the hand that has provided such a generous gift. I am pleased to introduce this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I wish to recognize a tremendously innovative small business from my home State of Maine that recently opened an upgraded production facility to benefit both its employees and its business operations. Immucell, an emerging biotechnology company based in Portland, opened its newly expanded building on June 7 to great fanfare. The new facility benefits Immucell's 30 employees, who now have enhanced space and equipment with which to conduct research and manufacture products. Equally as critical, the facility was designed to help Immucell more easily comply with current good manufacturing practice standards. Enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, current good manufacturing practice requirements assure quality in our food and medicines. Immucell's specialized work is quite impressive. In a rapidly expanding biotech industry, Immucell has carved out a niche as a leading producer of medicines for animals in the dairy industry. The company's products, such as First Defense and Mast-Out, have ensured the safety and health of cows and calves that supply our milk and other dairy products. Working together with Pfizer, Immucell has managed to turn Mast-Out into a profitable product. Besides its products, Immucell's research provides the company a respected and prestigious role in the animal-health industry. I was delighted to hear that Immucell is seeking to use its expanded facilities to extend its reach into overseas markets. What a great honor that would be for the State of Maine. Immucell contributes immensely to Maine's small business community, and the ever-increasing relevance of its work also places it at the forefront of modern science worldwide. Immucell's efforts to become a leader in its market are noteworthy, and the vision that its leadership has for future growth reflects a steadfast determination for continued success. It is particularly exciting that a Maine small business is making such a name for itself in an industry replete with large companies. Immucell and its high- paying jobs provide us with a shining example of smart growth. I commend chief executive officer Michael Brigham and all the employees at Immucell for their wise choices and tremendous achievements, and I wish them much success in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I join with my fellow Senators and so many in Wyoming and throughout the country in expressing my profound sadness on the passing of my colleague and good friend, Senator Craig Thomas. I also want to offer my most sincere condolences to his wife Susan, their four children, and the entire Thomas family at this most difficult of times. Today, we mourn the loss of a true patriot whose love of country and loyalty to its principles were always an inspiration and example to us all. A U.S. Marine captain, an advocate for rural concerns with the Wyoming Farm Bureau, American Farm Bureau, and the Wyoming Rural Electric Association, and an indefatigable public servant as a Member of the Wyoming House of Representatives, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate--Senator Thomas always placed a premium on bettering the lives of the citizens of his state, ensuring that their concerns were not only heard--but were addressed vigorously, effectively, and with results. I recall the distinct honor and privilege of serving with Craig for more than 17 years both in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Indeed, we entered the Senate in the same class of 1994, and I remember with tremendous regard our service together on the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Finance Committees. Time and again, regardless of the issue, Craig exhibited a stalwart dedication to his country and his constituents--with a steadfast devotion that was ever mindful of the public trust placed in his hands. Senator Thomas was unwavering in his allegiance to the tenets that guided his life. True to his core beliefs and unshakable in the values he drew from his beloved Wyoming, Senator Thomas held fast to his philosophy of fiscal conservatism. And yet when he advanced his arguments, he did so without rancor and with the utmost respect and cordiality. He possessed an unyielding decorum that contributed to his esteemed presence in the Senate, and he had at his disposal that indispensable tool of politics--humor, which he used to great effect and at times with incredibly disarming outcomes. Even when we disagreed, he was never disagreeable, rather choosing to give no more than an occasional good-natured ribbing--always with a smile on his face. As my colleague Mike Enzi stated in his tribute, Craig Thomas was not one who necessarily sought the limelight. He lived his life and comported himself in a manner that exemplified the words President Ronald Reagan displayed on his desk in the Oval Office: ``There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' Whether on matters of rural health, safeguarding the interest and concerns of farmers, or reducing the deficit, Craig focused on making concrete strides, not amassing accolades. In the arena of public life, regardless of trial, tribulation, or triumph, Senator Craig Thomas remained a compassionate person of immense caliber who served the best interests of the people of Wyoming with unyielding advocacy, integrity of purpose, and uncommon civility. We will miss his benevolent nature, his good will, and his great deeds. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and staff here in Washington and in Wyoming.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Hagel, and Nelson of Nebraska to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. I am proud to join my colleagues, each one a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be deprived of any air service. I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. All of us who come from rural States know how critical aviation is to economic development, vital to move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small and medium size cities in rural areas, like Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small and medium-size communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. This legislation will serve to improve the Essential Air Service program. Additional resources will augment the resources available to the program, reducing the impact on the general fund while providing small communities with a greater degree of certainty when planning future improvements to their airports. The bill also gives those same communities a greater role in retaining and determining the sort of air service which they receive. Increasingly, the Essential Air Service program has been plagued with a decline in the number of airlines willing to provide this critical link to the national transportation network. A few ``bad actors'' have jeopardized commercial aviation for entire regions by submitting low- ball contracts to the Department of Transportation and then reneging on their commitment to the extent and quality of their service. Our bill will not only establish a system of minimum requirements for contracts to protect these small cities that rely on EAS, but it will also extend those contracts to 4 years from the current 2. This gives a heightened degree of stability in terms of air service, rather than having communities negotiating new contracts or receiving service from entirely new carriers every 18 months. In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable access to air service. That is why I strongly believe the Federal Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these communities in 1978; to safeguard their ability to continue commercial air service.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2007. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Cantwell, join me in cosponsoring this bill, which will enable our Nation to improve the management of our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources. More than half of all Americans reside in coastal zones, and each year their number grows by more than 3,600. Yet, coastal regions comprise just 17 percent of the land area in the contiguous United States. People are drawn to our oceans and Great Lakes to experience the economic opportunities, natural beauty, and recreational bounty that these regions have to offer. Part of that value, both the tangible and intangible, comes from the habitat these ecosystems provide for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks. As population pressures increase, we must work diligently to maintain a balance between human use of these delicate regions and their natural, ecological functions. When Congress passed the CZMA in 1972, it established a unique State- Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning. The law gives States the opportunity to create a coastal zone management plan which, once approved, makes States eligible for matching Federal funds to carry out the goals of its plan. This system allows States to tailor plans to their individual needs, but permits the Federal Government to ensure that marine resources, which often overlap political boundaries, are managed responsibly nationwide. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States' 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system, including, 34 of the 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories. The 35th, Illinois, has submitted a plan for Federal approval. The CZMA has not been reauthorized in over a decade, and the program has been operating with authorization levels and mandates that expired in 1999. Much has changed in the interim, and persistent threats to coastal areas, such as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution and constriction of working waterfront areas, have out-paced states' abilities to maintain an appropriate balance between development and conservation. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2007 would encourage states to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. Each year, we also learn more about threats to our coasts from impacts of global climate change, yet the CZMA currently provides no foundation to manage these problems. Mounting evidence indicates that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, approximately a third of which is absorbed in our oceans, is affecting marine chemistry and acidifying sea water. As global temperatures rise, we are also experiencing an increase in ocean temperatures which can affect the migratory patterns and range of marine species distribution. The problems of potential sea level rise have also been well-documented in academic journals and the mainstream media. The bill I introduce today contains a provision giving states the authority to adapt their coastal zone management plans to address these potential impacts and develop potential mitigation and adaptation measures. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2007 also significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $170 million for fiscal year 2008 and increases the authorization levels to $193.5 million for fiscal year 2012. This adjustment in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential. The Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping states achieve their coastal area management goals by enhancing their ability to maintain clean, safe, and productive coastlines that ultimately serve the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the near unanimous participation by eligible States, and the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I am pleased to introduce this legislation that would provide our coastal states with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Additionally, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I would like to commend my colleagues for their hard work that has resulted in today's introduction of six ocean- related bills. As you are aware, we are in the midst of Capitol Hill Oceans Week, and I am pleased that we can commemorate that occasion by bringing these critical marine issues to the fore. I look forward to working with my fellow Committee members and the rest of the Senate as we improve management of our Nation's invaluable coastal and ocean resources for the benefit of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2007. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Cantwell, join me in cosponsoring this bill, which will enable our Nation to improve the management of our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources. More than half of all Americans reside in coastal zones, and each year their number grows by more than 3,600. Yet, coastal regions comprise just 17 percent of the land area in the contiguous United States. People are drawn to our oceans and Great Lakes to experience the economic opportunities, natural beauty, and recreational bounty that these regions have to offer. Part of that value, both the tangible and intangible, comes from the habitat these ecosystems provide for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks. As population pressures increase, we must work diligently to maintain a balance between human use of these delicate regions and their natural, ecological functions. When Congress passed the CZMA in 1972, it established a unique State- Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning. The law gives States the opportunity to create a coastal zone management plan which, once approved, makes States eligible for matching Federal funds to carry out the goals of its plan. This system allows States to tailor plans to their individual needs, but permits the Federal Government to ensure that marine resources, which often overlap political boundaries, are managed responsibly nationwide. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States' 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system, including, 34 of the 35 coastal and Great Lakes states and territories. The 35th, Illinois, has submitted a plan for Federal approval. The CZMA has not been reauthorized in over a decade, and the program has been operating with authorization levels and mandates that expired in 1999. Much has changed in the interim, and persistent threats to coastal areas, such as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution and constriction of working waterfront areas, have out-paced states' abilities to maintain an appropriate balance between development and conservation. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2007 would encourage states to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. Each year, we also learn more about threats to our coasts from impacts of global climate change, yet the CZMA currently provides no foundation to manage these problems. Mounting evidence indicates that increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, approximately a third of which is absorbed in our oceans, is affecting marine chemistry and acidifying sea water. As global temperatures rise, we are also experiencing an increase in ocean temperatures which can affect the migratory patterns and range of marine species distribution. The problems of potential sea level rise have also been well-documented in academic journals and the mainstream media. The bill I introduce today contains a provision giving states the authority to adapt their coastal zone management plans to address these potential impacts and develop potential mitigation and adaptation measures. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2007 also significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $170 million for fiscal year 2008 and increases the authorization levels to $193.5 million for fiscal year 2012. This adjustment in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential. The Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping states achieve their coastal area management goals by enhancing their ability to maintain clean, safe, and productive coastlines that ultimately serve the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the near unanimous participation by eligible States, and the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I am pleased to introduce this legislation that would provide our coastal states with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Additionally, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I would like to commend my colleagues for their hard work that has resulted in today's introduction of six ocean- related bills. As you are aware, we are in the midst of Capitol Hill Oceans Week, and I am pleased that we can commemorate that occasion by bringing these critical marine issues to the fore. I look forward to working with my fellow Committee members and the rest of the Senate as we improve management of our Nation's invaluable coastal and ocean resources for the benefit of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Hagel, and Nelson of Nebraska to introduce the bipartisan Rural Aviation Improvement Act. I am proud to join my colleagues, each one a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be deprived of any air service. I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. All of us who come from rural States know how critical aviation is to economic development, vital to move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small and medium size cities in rural areas, like Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small and medium-size communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. This legislation will serve to improve the Essential Air Service program. Additional resources will augment the resources available to the program, reducing the impact on the general fund while providing small communities with a greater degree of certainty when planning future improvements to their airports. The bill also gives those same communities a greater role in retaining and determining the sort of air service which they receive. Increasingly, the Essential Air Service program has been plagued with a decline in the number of airlines willing to provide this critical link to the national transportation network. A few ``bad actors'' have jeopardized commercial aviation for entire regions by submitting low- ball contracts to the Department of Transportation and then reneging on their commitment to the extent and quality of their service. Our bill will not only establish a system of minimum requirements for contracts to protect these small cities that rely on EAS, but it will also extend those contracts to 4 years from the current 2. This gives a heightened degree of stability in terms of air service, rather than having communities negotiating new contracts or receiving service from entirely new carriers every 18 months. In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable access to air service. That is why I strongly believe the Federal Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these communities in 1978; to safeguard their ability to continue commercial air service.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize a tremendous small business from my home State of Maine that was recently designated as the 2007 Eastern Region Small Business of the Year by the United States Chamber of Commerce. Established in 1927 by Frank A. Peabody, the F.A. Peabody Company, based in Houlton, ME, has grown over the last 80 years to meet the insurance, investment, and real estate needs of Mainers. From the number of employees, to the number of locations, and even the services the company provides to the residents of northern Maine, F.A. Peabody's expansion has been a crowning achievement of small business in Aroostook County and, indeed, all of northern and eastern Maine. This award is a fitting recognition of F.A. Peabody's past accomplishments, and its continued superb work for Maine. F.A. Peabody began as a property casualty insurance agency for Aroostook County, and grew to represent 20 insurance companies. As time progressed, the company expanded to meet other needs in the community, including investment management, real estate brokerage, and travel services. A truly diversified operation, F.A. Peabody has gone further in recent years by administering mortuary trusts and providing broadband internet to businesses and individuals from the counties of Maine's northern potato fields to its eastern shoreline. In light of a lack of broadband internet in Aroostook County earlier this decade, F.A. Peabody decided to take action and become a broadband internet service provider. Collectively, F.A. Peabody employs over 70 people, and has a wellness program to award employees with bonuses and gifts. Chris and Bob Anderson, president and chief financial officer, respectively, of F.A. Peabody, carry on the company's commitment to Maine's positive, pro- growth small business community. F.A. Peabody is truly a success story, and a bright example of what small businesses can accomplish with measured expansion and consistent determination. I congratulate F.A. Peabody on all of its accomplishments and, in particular, for garnering the attention of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This award is well-deserved, and I am confident that F.A. Peabody's strong, outstanding achievements will continue for years to come as a source of pride for all of Maine. I wish F.A. Peabody and its employees continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the true stalwarts of this institution an indefatigable legislator, a tireless advocate for his home State of Alaska, a public servant with a lifetime of contribution, and a treasured leader of this venerable Chamber, Senator Ted Stevens who, this past April 13, 2007, became the longest- serving Republican member of the U.S. Senate. Our good friend and colleague has received countless, well-deserved accolades for a tremendous milestone indeed. It is fitting that we pay tribute to an esteemed lawmaker whose ongoing legacy and longstanding record of accomplishment over a remarkable span of nearly 39 years of service in the U.S. Senate stand as a testament to the courage, vigor, and sense of duty he feels toward this country and the issues and policies shaping it. Ted is a force of nature, steadfast and resolute, in this time-honored body and in our nation's capital. His constituents wouldn't have him any other way, and we wouldn't either. His legacy of achievement on behalf of Alaskans is as large as the State they call home, and began even before he entered politics when he first moved to Washington, DC, to join the Eisenhower administration. While working for the Secretary of the Interior, he was not only present at Alaska's creation as a State in 1959, but was also instrumental in helping advocate for statehood. As a U.S. Senator, he was essential in championing the development of the Alaskan pipeline which was critical to his state and to the energy future of the country. He successfully advanced Alaska's infrastructure and transportation capabilities, especially vital to the state that is one- fifth the size of the entire lower 48. Alaska rightfully commemorated Senator Steven's indelible impact in these areas with the dedication of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport in 2000. With a far- reaching litany of accomplishments too numerous to mention, it comes as little surprise that the Alaska State Legislature--where he served as House majority leader in only his second term in the mid-1960s would name him at the millennium, the Alaskan of the Century. The people of my State of Maine are especially grateful to Senator Stevens for his landmark legislation that bears his name--the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act our Nation's indispensable fisheries act, which was reauthorized this past January and signed into law. First as the chair, and now the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee handling fisheries issues, I had the pleasure of working with full committee chairman and now ranking member Stevens throughout the process to help bring this bill to fruition. From the 300 year-old fishing villages in downeast Maine to remote Aleutian Island outposts, Senator Stevens has always been bound by a commitment to sustain both fish and fishermen. Through many Congresses, as both a chairman and ranking member, Senator Stevens has spearheaded and done much to shepherd improvements in the largely uncharted world of telecommunications policy that have been historic and consequential, and which will reverberate for generations. On a personal note, I want to express my debt of enormous thanks to Senator Stevens for his pivotal support in his Universal Service Fund Reform bill of the E-rate program which provides discounted telecommunications services to schools and libraries. Senator Stevens has been a bulwark catalyst on this initiative, and, as we recently commemorated the 10th anniversary since its inception, I couldn't help but recall with gratitude his crucial role in the wiring schools in my State and across the country. It must also be noted that in an era of increasing partisanship, Senator Stevens shares an unassailable bond with the senior Senator from Hawaii, a Democrat, Daniel Inouye a friendship, profoundly steeped in their mutual, heroic tours of duty in World War II, which continues to this day as a model example of collegiality, bipartisanship, and comity that transcends politics. This decorated Army Air Forces pilot in the storied ``Flying Tigers,'' whose immense devotion to this land and its people extends across six decades, is not one to move to the side or step away when he is fighting for what he believes in or on behalf of his State or in defense of his country. That speaks volumes in explaining Senator Stevens' well-known trademark as he prepares to debate on the Senate floor and he dons his infamous tie emblazoned with the Marvel comic book character, The Incredible Hulk! With hallmark humor, strength, and aplomb, how could he approach his robust role any differently--a man whose larger-than-life tenure in the public arena reflects the enormity of his stunning and beloved Alaska, a State with a name that means literally ``the object towards which the action of the sea is directed.'' For more than half century, the action of the sea of public policy has always found its way to this great American and still does because he welcomes it, thrives on it, and seizes upon it in the name of The Last Frontier State and to the benefit of our Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize for the week of May 20 an outstanding small business from my home State of Maine that will on May 31 receive the Maine Exporter of the Year Award for 2007 from the Maine International Trade Center. Oak Island Seafood, Inc., of Rockland, MA is a scallop processing company. In addition to providing quality seafood products to U.S. retailers, Oak Island Seafood has expanded to include Europe and Asia in its distribution network. Incredibly, 70 percent of its finished product is exported to other countries, most notably to nations within the European Union. Clearly, Oak Island Seafood is a Maine company that has wide, international reach. Oak Island Seafood, founded in 1995, has expanded to serve many comers of the globe over the past 12 years, while simultaneously maintaining its status as a unique small business. The company employs roughly 30 year-round employees in Rockland, an historic seaport community in Maine's well-known midcoast region where Penobscot Bay converges with the Atlantic Ocean. Their use of state-of-the-art equipment to deliver Maine seafood to the rest of the world exemplifies the innovation that small businesses can use to do exceptional things. With Maine's 5,500 miles of coastline, its fishing and seafood industries are clearly vital to the State's economy. And while everyone knows Maine for its lobster--which I would argue is the best--Maine's fruitful portion of the Atlantic Ocean and our many waterways provide a variety of delicious and often healthy fish and shellfish, including salmon, shrimp, and scallops. Oak Island Seafood's commitment to providing Maine seafood to not only the region but also to the rest of the world is remarkable. As fish and other fresh and frozen seafood products comprise Maine's No. 4 export industry, it is crucial that we find ways to continue augmenting the work that Oak Island Seafood and other companies do in seeking foreign markets to showcase Maine seafood. Equally necessary, we need to do all that we can to protect and preserve our seafaring families and the crucial work they undertake. The Maine International Trade Center, which is presenting the Maine Exporter of the Year award to Oak Island Seafood, is Maine's small business link to the rest of the world. It is a public-private partnership between the State of Maine and its businesses. The center's goal is to increase international trade in Maine and in particular to assist Maine's businesses in exporting goods and services. Clearly it sees in Oak Island Seafood the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that make Maine's small businesses so unique and successful. I again congratulate Oak Island Seafood on being recognized Maine Exporter of the Year and wish them well. The award, which will be presented to them on Thursday, May 31, at the 27th annual Maine International Trade Day, is truly something of which we can and should all be proud.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize for the week of May 13 an outstanding small business from my home State of Maine that has not only succeeded in manufacturing a product of great quality, but has also made its facilities environmentally friendly and energy efficient. Lyman Morse Boatbuilding of Thomaston, ME has produced boats for over 100 years. Noted for their expert craftsmanship and storied history, Lyman Morse has a proven track record of quality and success. In their great spirit of innovation, Lyman Morse will be unveiling, on May 26, a ``green''--or energy efficient--boat-building facility, and I want to take this opportunity to commend them for this fabulous attempt at conservation. Lyman Morse's new ``green'' building is a temperature-controlled facility that is designed for the construction and service of large yachts. Completed in less than a year, the building is 140 feet long, 160 feet wide, and stands 55 feet high. What is particularly remarkable is that heat generated on the building's roof from the sun can be absorbed and used as energy for the building--a truly impressive feat in efficiency. While the new ``green'' building will be Lyman Morse's largest, it will also be their most energy efficient, proving that conservation does not have to hamper effectiveness. To construct its new facility, I would like to point out that Lyman Morse took advantage of a tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings Congress enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Congress should heed the example of Lyman Morse, because by incorporating ``green'' building practices, we can reduce energy consumption, increase profitability--and create more jobs. While Lyman Morse Boatbuilding follows in the historic tradition of New England boat building, particularly that of Midcoast Maine, I am so pleased that it has decided to take advantage of modern technology to be environmentally responsible. In fact, Lyman Morse has been a terrific corporate citizen for many years. I want to point out that in January 2006, the State of Maine declared Lyman Morse Boatbuilding a Maine Clean Boatyard and Marina. A program designed to help preserve and improve natural resources while reducing pollution, the Maine Clean Boatyard and Marinas Program is a partnership of industry, state and federal agencies, and environmental organizations dedicated to promoting best management practices in boatyards and marinas. Participants must exceed Federal and State environmental compliance standards to achieve designation. It is their commitment to environmental safety and energy efficiency, combined with their impressive and trustworthy labor, that makes Lyman Morse a truly special Maine business and worthy of this recognition. I wish Lyman Morse all the best for the grand opening of their building. It is always inspiring to see examples of good stewards of the environment in Maine, a state that has always appreciated the importance of nature in our everyday lives. Their willingness to protect the one environment that we have is a beautiful example to all of us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Harkin of Iowa, to introduce the Cancer Screening, Treatment and Survivorship Act of 2007. This legislation will help us to realize a long-held vision--to see cancer conquered within our lifetimes. Today nearly half of all Americans can expect to suffer from an invasive form of cancer. So it is indisputable that cancer research, screening, and treatment should continue to be a high public health priority. Many have called for an elimination of cancer death and suffering by 2015, and I supported that ambitious goal along with 91 of my Senate colleagues. Yet it is concrete action which is required if we are to make progress towards that objective. Indeed, we have already seen remarkable progress in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Today, for example, more women are surviving breast cancer. Early diagnosis and modern treatments are saving lives. We have even seen that drug treatment can substantially reduce the recurrence of breast cancer. And it is the strides which we have made in scientific discovery is fueling those advances. Senator Harkin and I both worked to support the doubling of NIH funding--and the landmark work to map the human genome--and today we sit poised to make the progress of which generations have dreamed. Yet, no matter what we learn, no matter what cures are developed-- without access to screening and treatment, no cure is possible. And if one does not even know that the need for cure exists, no action can be taken. So cancer is one of a number of areas where we see stark disparities in health. That is why I have joined with Senator Harkin to introduce this legislation. As co-chairs of the Senate Prevention Coalition, we recognize that if we are to fundamentally improve both the quality and the cost of health care, we cannot continue to use a band-aid approach. Indeed to address illness late is only to increase the risk that individuals will not survive, and that we will provide only the most expensive tertiary care. So we need a new approach--a new mind set. Part of that is prevention, but not just prevention of the disease, but also avoidance of the negative consequences of disease. In no case is this so clear as with cancer. Because we know that early detection is so crucial to successful treatment, and this legislation recognizes that. Under our legislation we will see cancer screening extended to those who today, too often are without such care. This act would provide grants to states to employ screening programs to detect cancer early-- when it is most treatable. Under our legislation, the HHS Secretary will examine those diagnostics which meet the standards of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and select those with highest promise in order to see that we can reduce the toll of cancer. Those receiving grants will see that the public's awareness of screenings improves, that health professionals receive additional training in cancer detection and control, and that as new and better diagnostics are developed, Americans will have access to those advances without regard to their inability to pay. That is the first step in reducing the toll of cancer. Those who do receive a positive diagnosis as a result of this act will obtain treatment referrals, and states will have the option to provide treatment to those individuals without access to care under Medicaid. States which elect to do so would receive an enhanced Federal match to provide the very treatment which we know not only saves lives, but reduces costs as well. I know that some will argue that we cannot afford to add additional coverage to Medicaid. Yet to that I must answer that without coverage, many will simply see their disease progress, and ultimately end up Medicaid-eligible--but at a point when therapy is so much less effective. The cost of such deferral of care in both lives and health expenditures is enormous. So I hope that many states will elect to cover treatment, just as many already have for those women screened under the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program today. This is a milestone moment, because today we begin to move forward in how we address cancer--giving the HHS Secretary the authority to work in cooperation with the states to see that we work to see every American has access to screening and treatment for cancer. The step we are taking forward today is the product of so much work through the years. And this week, as cancer advocates--including Lance Armstrong and representatives of his foundation--press for action to achieve our vision of ending cancer in our lifetime, I am heartened by the promise before us. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the vision of our long war on cancer.

Ms. SNOWE. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, in introducing the Health Information Technology Act of 2007, which will serve to improve the quality of health care through implementation of information technology, IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. Our legislation is necessary because as a nation we face two stark problems. The first of these is a serious patient-safety problem. Indeed if most Americans were told today that 98,000 lives were lost needlessly last year and a cure was available they would undoubtedly call for action. Yet the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that medical errors inflict that toll every year, and we have the technology at our disposal to dramatically reduce those deaths. The good news is that solutions exist. We have the technological ability to dramatically reduce medical errors and thus save lives. Many of us have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards. Yet there are so many other applications which can improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and avoid adverse outcomes. Our second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Our health spending now comprises 16 percent of GNP, and the price of coverage has grown so high that the number of Americans without health insurance reached nearly 47 million last year. Those trends are threatening our economic competitiveness in the world and each American's health security as well. The answer is not to simply expand coverage, because on our current trajectory, escalating costs would simply erode our ability to provide care. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in health care. One of those changes must be the application of modern data technology to save lives and reduce costs. Indeed consider the savings when a physician can locate information efficiently. Tests do not have to be repeated and data is not delayed. In fact, a patient may obtain faster, higher quality care when, for example, multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the internet in seconds, is it not long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily? The President certainly recognizes the disparity in technology in health versus other parts of our economy. He has declared a goal for every American to have an electronic medical record within ten years. I concur, we need this and more. In fact, once that record is in place we can do so many things better. From preventing drug interactions, to managing chronic diseases, to simply helping providers operate more efficiently. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed,'' or ``we're still waiting for your chart.'' Health care is one of the last bastions of such inefficiency. Indeed it is often easier to track the service history on one's automobile than to see your own health history. The bad news is that the cost of new systems and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies. The President has made technology implementation a priority, and there is no doubt that a lack of standards has played a role in slowing IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that, no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor, the huge investment one makes in building an electronic medical records would not be lost. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. So when a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them, and their continuity of care shouldn't be interrupted. Yet standards alone aren't enough. Today many providers are struggling to make these investments, and for those which serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. Our physicians, for example, have seen recent Medicare payment updates which have not even kept pace with inflation . . . and at the same time some expect that they will make a major investment in health IT. The failure of that logic is clear because we know where the benefits are realized. The benefits to patients are evident, in fewer delays, in better outcome, lives saved. Health IT reduces costs as well, but primarily to those who pay for services, not to providers. Indeed it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost savings accrue to those who pay for services. It should be obvious then that the Federal Government would invest in health IT to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. That is precisely what this legislation would do. Because as we look to the many studies and reports on health IT, one thing is clear. The annual cost savings actually exceeds the price of implementation. With that kind of return, it is indisputable that the Federal Government must employ health IT to see not only the savings in lives, but also better management of health care spending. This legislation does that by providing grants to spur adoption among physicians, hospitals, long term care facilities, and both federally qualified health centers and community mental health centers. These grants are targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers need to serve our Federal beneficiaries. In fact, the size of an allowable grant for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care which they deliver to Federal beneficiaries. So we will help these providers deliver better care to those on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP . . . while working to see costs reduced in those programs. That is simple common sense. The legislation supports reasonable expenditures for a variety of expenses required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software, plus installation and training costs. In addition, when installed we require that every system must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards. Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. I again want to stress the first goal of this legislation: to help build a safer medical-delivery system. The great successes of our health care system are largely due to our highly committed and talented health care professionals. The problem we are addressing today is not theirs, but is an endemic weakness of the system they depend upon. However, to utilize the solution, the Federal Government must step forward and provide the leadership necessary to make system changes a reality. When the Medicare and Medicaid Programs began, we could only have dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Now, today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. In fact, as we face challenges in the financing of health entitlements, this is exactly the sort of initiative which will enable us to achieve the fundamental improvements to make these benefits more fiscally secure. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, in introducing the Health Information Technology Act of 2007, which will serve to improve the quality of health care through implementation of information technology, IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. Our legislation is necessary because as a nation we face two stark problems. The first of these is a serious patient-safety problem. Indeed if most Americans were told today that 98,000 lives were lost needlessly last year and a cure was available they would undoubtedly call for action. Yet the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that medical errors inflict that toll every year, and we have the technology at our disposal to dramatically reduce those deaths. The good news is that solutions exist. We have the technological ability to dramatically reduce medical errors and thus save lives. Many of us have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards. Yet there are so many other applications which can improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and avoid adverse outcomes. Our second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Our health spending now comprises 16 percent of GNP, and the price of coverage has grown so high that the number of Americans without health insurance reached nearly 47 million last year. Those trends are threatening our economic competitiveness in the world and each American's health security as well. The answer is not to simply expand coverage, because on our current trajectory, escalating costs would simply erode our ability to provide care. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in health care. One of those changes must be the application of modern data technology to save lives and reduce costs. Indeed consider the savings when a physician can locate information efficiently. Tests do not have to be repeated and data is not delayed. In fact, a patient may obtain faster, higher quality care when, for example, multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the internet in seconds, is it not long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily? The President certainly recognizes the disparity in technology in health versus other parts of our economy. He has declared a goal for every American to have an electronic medical record within ten years. I concur, we need this and more. In fact, once that record is in place we can do so many things better. From preventing drug interactions, to managing chronic diseases, to simply helping providers operate more efficiently. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed,'' or ``we're still waiting for your chart.'' Health care is one of the last bastions of such inefficiency. Indeed it is often easier to track the service history on one's automobile than to see your own health history. The bad news is that the cost of new systems and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies. The President has made technology implementation a priority, and there is no doubt that a lack of standards has played a role in slowing IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that, no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor, the huge investment one makes in building an electronic medical records would not be lost. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. So when a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them, and their continuity of care shouldn't be interrupted. Yet standards alone aren't enough. Today many providers are struggling to make these investments, and for those which serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. Our physicians, for example, have seen recent Medicare payment updates which have not even kept pace with inflation . . . and at the same time some expect that they will make a major investment in health IT. The failure of that logic is clear because we know where the benefits are realized. The benefits to patients are evident, in fewer delays, in better outcome, lives saved. Health IT reduces costs as well, but primarily to those who pay for services, not to providers. Indeed it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost savings accrue to those who pay for services. It should be obvious then that the Federal Government would invest in health IT to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. That is precisely what this legislation would do. Because as we look to the many studies and reports on health IT, one thing is clear. The annual cost savings actually exceeds the price of implementation. With that kind of return, it is indisputable that the Federal Government must employ health IT to see not only the savings in lives, but also better management of health care spending. This legislation does that by providing grants to spur adoption among physicians, hospitals, long term care facilities, and both federally qualified health centers and community mental health centers. These grants are targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers need to serve our Federal beneficiaries. In fact, the size of an allowable grant for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care which they deliver to Federal beneficiaries. So we will help these providers deliver better care to those on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP . . . while working to see costs reduced in those programs. That is simple common sense. The legislation supports reasonable expenditures for a variety of expenses required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software, plus installation and training costs. In addition, when installed we require that every system must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards. Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. I again want to stress the first goal of this legislation: to help build a safer medical-delivery system. The great successes of our health care system are largely due to our highly committed and talented health care professionals. The problem we are addressing today is not theirs, but is an endemic weakness of the system they depend upon. However, to utilize the solution, the Federal Government must step forward and provide the leadership necessary to make system changes a reality. When the Medicare and Medicaid Programs began, we could only have dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Now, today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. In fact, as we face challenges in the financing of health entitlements, this is exactly the sort of initiative which will enable us to achieve the fundamental improvements to make these benefits more fiscally secure. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Harkin of Iowa, to introduce the Cancer Screening, Treatment and Survivorship Act of 2007. This legislation will help us to realize a long-held vision--to see cancer conquered within our lifetimes. Today nearly half of all Americans can expect to suffer from an invasive form of cancer. So it is indisputable that cancer research, screening, and treatment should continue to be a high public health priority. Many have called for an elimination of cancer death and suffering by 2015, and I supported that ambitious goal along with 91 of my Senate colleagues. Yet it is concrete action which is required if we are to make progress towards that objective. Indeed, we have already seen remarkable progress in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Today, for example, more women are surviving breast cancer. Early diagnosis and modern treatments are saving lives. We have even seen that drug treatment can substantially reduce the recurrence of breast cancer. And it is the strides which we have made in scientific discovery is fueling those advances. Senator Harkin and I both worked to support the doubling of NIH funding--and the landmark work to map the human genome--and today we sit poised to make the progress of which generations have dreamed. Yet, no matter what we learn, no matter what cures are developed-- without access to screening and treatment, no cure is possible. And if one does not even know that the need for cure exists, no action can be taken. So cancer is one of a number of areas where we see stark disparities in health. That is why I have joined with Senator Harkin to introduce this legislation. As co-chairs of the Senate Prevention Coalition, we recognize that if we are to fundamentally improve both the quality and the cost of health care, we cannot continue to use a band-aid approach. Indeed to address illness late is only to increase the risk that individuals will not survive, and that we will provide only the most expensive tertiary care. So we need a new approach--a new mind set. Part of that is prevention, but not just prevention of the disease, but also avoidance of the negative consequences of disease. In no case is this so clear as with cancer. Because we know that early detection is so crucial to successful treatment, and this legislation recognizes that. Under our legislation we will see cancer screening extended to those who today, too often are without such care. This act would provide grants to states to employ screening programs to detect cancer early-- when it is most treatable. Under our legislation, the HHS Secretary will examine those diagnostics which meet the standards of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and select those with highest promise in order to see that we can reduce the toll of cancer. Those receiving grants will see that the public's awareness of screenings improves, that health professionals receive additional training in cancer detection and control, and that as new and better diagnostics are developed, Americans will have access to those advances without regard to their inability to pay. That is the first step in reducing the toll of cancer. Those who do receive a positive diagnosis as a result of this act will obtain treatment referrals, and states will have the option to provide treatment to those individuals without access to care under Medicaid. States which elect to do so would receive an enhanced Federal match to provide the very treatment which we know not only saves lives, but reduces costs as well. I know that some will argue that we cannot afford to add additional coverage to Medicaid. Yet to that I must answer that without coverage, many will simply see their disease progress, and ultimately end up Medicaid-eligible--but at a point when therapy is so much less effective. The cost of such deferral of care in both lives and health expenditures is enormous. So I hope that many states will elect to cover treatment, just as many already have for those women screened under the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program today. This is a milestone moment, because today we begin to move forward in how we address cancer--giving the HHS Secretary the authority to work in cooperation with the states to see that we work to see every American has access to screening and treatment for cancer. The step we are taking forward today is the product of so much work through the years. And this week, as cancer advocates--including Lance Armstrong and representatives of his foundation--press for action to achieve our vision of ending cancer in our lifetime, I am heartened by the promise before us. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the vision of our long war on cancer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of protection that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess. As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. While I certainly concur that safety of drivers is very important, and I have the record to prove it, I ask you do not overlook the safety of pedestrians as well. In Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the Maine Turnpike, many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel are passing elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach our Air National Guard station. Not only is this an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed in the past year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. What is the result of such traffic? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them. The argument against such trucks is that it is a ``slippery slope'' that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give every State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this amendment that we are halfway there already. A total of 27 States already have some type of exemption, and 47 States allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, IN, just outside of Chicago, and can operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers. Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, MO, and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of protection that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess. As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. While I certainly concur that safety of drivers is very important, and I have the record to prove it, I ask you do not overlook the safety of pedestrians as well. In Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the Maine Turnpike, many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel are passing elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach our Air National Guard station. Not only is this an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians. This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed in the past year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. What is the result of such traffic? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them. The argument against such trucks is that it is a ``slippery slope'' that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give every State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this amendment that we are halfway there already. A total of 27 States already have some type of exemption, and 47 States allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, IN, just outside of Chicago, and can operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers. Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, MO, and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, it is truly a solemn honor to join in recognizing these exceptional soldiers extraordinary enough to have worn our Nation's uniform as you gather for the unveiling of the Oxford County Vietnam War Memorial It is fitting and just that on this Armed Services Day, as we express our gratefulness to soldiers in service to our Nation, we commemorate those who saw service in Vietnam--especially the 37 Mainers who perished or are considered missing in action, whose revered names are remembered for all time on this Vietnam War Memorial. This tribute to their valor and their enduring dedication to duty reminds us that all the blessings of liberty we cherish today, the protection of our families, and the strength of our democracy represent our inheritance from generations past that we are obligated to safeguard and carry forth into the future. This shining example of their contribution will serve not only to inspire--but also to heal. It will ensure that we always regard with the highest respect the inexpressible debt of gratitude we owe all soldiers and their families which we can never repay, but must never forget. And to faithfully and appropriately honor those who have fallen, we must nurture and protect the founding democratic principles we treasure, for which they so bravely made the ultimate sacrifice. Every name etched on this wall corresponds to a unique story, but all are bound together, each to each, comrade to comrade, and soldier to soldier, by a universal, selfless devotion a commitment eloquently memorialized by President John Adams when he wrote, ``if we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve? Two servicemen, SGT James B. Bartlett, U.S. Army, 1st Infantry Division, Bethel and SSG John H. R. Brooks, U.S. Army, 129th Assault Helicopter, Peru, are both missing in action, and so this monument must also stand as a testament that we will honorably keep the faith with those who so valiantly kept their faith with us. Each person we celebrate on this wall dignifies this memorial and makes it the sacred destination that it is intended to be, and that dignity is passed on to each of us when we pay rightful homage to the nobility of their deeds and the legacy of their love for this country. May God bless you all, and may God bless the United States of America.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize a small business from my home State that has triumphed over adversity in the wake of several major coastal storms. The Inn at Long Sands in York Beach, ME, suffered extensive damage as the result of a devastating storm on Mother's Day weekend of May 2006. With Memorial Day weekend approaching, signaling the unofficial beginning of summer-- a busy time for York County's tourism industry--Arline Shea, the Inn's co-owner watched countless hotel and meal reservations get washed away. As a result of the storm, the Inn sustained over $100,000 in damage. This was not a welcome beginning for Arline, who had just purchased the Inn in February 2006. Although the storm dealt Arline a heavy blow, she exemplified Maine's entrepreneurial spirit by reopening in a matter of weeks. To recover from the damage the Inn had sustained, Arline wisely made good use of the tools available to small businesses in the wake of disasters. She contacted the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration to find out what kinds of assistance she would be able to receive. Arline's exemplary decision to find out what help was available to her, along with her hard work and dedication, allowed her to reopen the Inn and Long Sands in time for last year's Fourth of July holiday. Despite all of the tragedy that befell Arline Shea and her employees, her optimistic spirit shined through just a month following the storm, when the Portsmouth Herald interviewed her for a story on the recovery from the storm. ``Nobody died,'' Arline said. ``We all have our health. That and the ice cream cone I have every day from the Village Scoop helps,'' she added with good humor. Arline displayed an entrepreneurial spirit, combined with a sense of humor, that allowed her to prevail following the devastation. Unfortunately, the nightmare did not stop there for Arline. Just last month, Maine suffered, as did most of the east coast, a crippling storm, known to Mainers as the ``Patriots Day Storm.'' This time, however, Arline was prepared for the storm, with sandbags and new sump pumps. Because of the lessons learned--and her preparation--Arline sustained minimal damage from a storm that caused major flooding in most parts of the country, and certainly across Maine. While countless Maine businesses have overcome obstacles and succeeded, Arline's story sticks out as an outstanding example to all Maine business owners. Shortly after purchasing the Inn, Arline's father passed away. She rebounded from this personal tragedy, and from the disaster that beset her business, by utilizing the resources available to her, maintaining an optimistic spirit, and learning how to deal with disaster in the process. Arline's inspiring example shows all Maine business owners that they can persevere from any challenge that they face. And so, I want to congratulate Arline Shea and the Inn at Long Sands for providing small businesses with a beacon to look forward to. She is truly a small business owner of whom we are all so proud. We wish her future success and offer her, and all of Maine's small businesses, our complete assistance. Maine, and indeed the nation, can benefit from Arline Shea's optimism, determination, and entrepreneurship.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq. Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. That sense of urgency was compounded by my recent trip to Iraq this past weekend where I had the privilege of meeting with some of America's bravest and finest serving in Baghdad, including Mainers. I came away believing more firmly than ever that the Iraq Government must understand that our commitment is not infinite, and that Americans are losing patience with the failure of the leadership to end the sectarian violence and move toward national reconciliation. My visit further underscored the fact that there is not a military solution to the problem, and in the final analysis, the situation requires demonstrable action by the Iraq Government on true political reform and reconciliation. My firsthand experience reinforced that political will and diplomatic initiatives must form the core of our success, and that our goal must be to bring about reconciliation as soon as possible so that all of America's soldiers including those from Maine can return home to their families and loved ones. None of us arrive at this question 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. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters, some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for, and love of, our great Nation. And there was, and should not be today, no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops. It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that Senator Evan Bayh and I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi Government which fails to respond in kind. Before proceeding any further, let me pause to express my deep appreciation and immense gratitude to Senator Bayh for his tremendous leadership and indispensable contribution in forging this welcomed, bipartisan measure. If there ever were a time for us to fashion a way forward, together, it is surely now, and because of Senator Bayh and his tireless efforts we have a measure that represents a significant step in the right direction. I thank him and his staff for bringing this fresh approach to fruition today. The Snowe-Bayh Iraq bill requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan, commonly referred to as the ``surge,'' is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan. Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment, a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi Government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are: Iraqi assumption of control of its military; enactment and implementation of a militia law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq; completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the Government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; completion of a provincial election law and commencement and specific preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq. The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period. That is why, under the Snowe-Bayh measure, after 120 days, should the commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counterterrorism operations, for examples, those functions set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report, with the objective of successfully accomplishing this change in mission within 6 months of the date of his testimony before Congress. The commander must further indicate the number of troops needed to successfully complete the changed mission and the estimated duration of that mission. As General Petraeus stated in March. I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change. My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not, and still do not, believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation, we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi. After our 4-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation, we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been mad on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments. I believe we were all encouraged by the recent ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and last week's ministerial conference called at the Iraqi Government's request. These diplomatic talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi Government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province. We are now 3\1/2\ months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that, mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi Government has moved on political reforms, their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts. Last month, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-ED, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.' '' In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi Government is a paramount precursor to national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.'' To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us. If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi Government, and frankly our government as well, that at my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi Government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions, not merely increased troop levels, presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice, strong, together, and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq. Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. That sense of urgency was compounded by my recent trip to Iraq this past weekend where I had the privilege of meeting with some of America's bravest and finest serving in Baghdad, including Mainers. I came away believing more firmly than ever that the Iraq Government must understand that our commitment is not infinite, and that Americans are losing patience with the failure of the leadership to end the sectarian violence and move toward national reconciliation. My visit further underscored the fact that there is not a military solution to the problem, and in the final analysis, the situation requires demonstrable action by the Iraq Government on true political reform and reconciliation. My firsthand experience reinforced that political will and diplomatic initiatives must form the core of our success, and that our goal must be to bring about reconciliation as soon as possible so that all of America's soldiers including those from Maine can return home to their families and loved ones. None of us arrive at this question 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. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters, some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for, and love of, our great Nation. And there was, and should not be today, no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops. It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that Senator Evan Bayh and I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi Government which fails to respond in kind. Before proceeding any further, let me pause to express my deep appreciation and immense gratitude to Senator Bayh for his tremendous leadership and indispensable contribution in forging this welcomed, bipartisan measure. If there ever were a time for us to fashion a way forward, together, it is surely now, and because of Senator Bayh and his tireless efforts we have a measure that represents a significant step in the right direction. I thank him and his staff for bringing this fresh approach to fruition today. The Snowe-Bayh Iraq bill requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan, commonly referred to as the ``surge,'' is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan. Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment, a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi Government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are: Iraqi assumption of control of its military; enactment and implementation of a militia law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq; completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the Government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; completion of a provincial election law and commencement and specific preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity; enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq. The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period. That is why, under the Snowe-Bayh measure, after 120 days, should the commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counterterrorism operations, for examples, those functions set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report, with the objective of successfully accomplishing this change in mission within 6 months of the date of his testimony before Congress. The commander must further indicate the number of troops needed to successfully complete the changed mission and the estimated duration of that mission. As General Petraeus stated in March. I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change. My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not, and still do not, believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation, we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi. After our 4-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation, we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been mad on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments. I believe we were all encouraged by the recent ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and last week's ministerial conference called at the Iraqi Government's request. These diplomatic talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi Government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province. We are now 3\1/2\ months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that, mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi Government has moved on political reforms, their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts. Last month, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-ED, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.' '' In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi Government is a paramount precursor to national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.'' To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us. If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi Government, and frankly our government as well, that at my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi Government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions, not merely increased troop levels, presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice, strong, together, and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy and for his cosponsorship of this initiative. I, obviously, want to also thank the sponsor of this legislation, with whom I am privileged to join, the Senator from North Dakota, who has demonstrated leadership for the last decade on this initiative which is so crucial to the American consumer. I rise to speak today on behalf of the Dorgan-Snowe amendment regarding drug importation. I know the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, has offered a second-degree amendment to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services certify both the savings and safety of drug importation. Obviously, there is concern for the safety of the American people. It is one that I appreciate strongly. It must be our highest priority. But we have been at this juncture before with respect to drug importation. As I mentioned earlier, twice before we have seen the Congress adopt a requirement for the Secretary to certify safety and savings before implementing a program of prescription drug importation, and not a single prescription drug was imported under either the MEDS Act of 2000 or the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Americans deserve access to affordable medications, and that access must be safe, but it is not made so by simply certifying with respect to drug importation. As I said, twice before we have been through this--in 2000, and of course in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 under the prescription drug benefit for the Part D Program. Many who are in the Senate today supported a certification requirement in good faith, recognizing that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would certify the safety upon reviewing and evaluating circumstances, but that has not occurred. Most would not think such a certification would block Americans from legally importing medications. That is because for years we have seen our constituents--and certainly those from my State of Maine--using Canadian pharmacies, and both the safety and savings were indisputable. Yet certification did not arrive. As a result, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Shalala, declined to make the certification with respect to the MEDS Act, and we know she did so because of three specific flaws in the law, each of which this legislation addresses. After the passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, which included the prescription drug program, we saw that former Secretary Thompson could not certify importation. The fact is, it is patently unfair to ask the Secretary to make such a certification, especially as to safety. That is because you must give the Secretary the resources and the authority to implement measures to make prescription drugs and their distribution as safe as possible. So it comes as no surprise that given no standards, no authority, and no resources, we have failed to see a Secretary provide certification over the last 7 years. Secretary Thompson understood this well. He said it simply: The law is this: In order to import drugs from any country, and especially Canada, I have to certify that all those drugs are safe. That is an impossible thing. If Congress wants to import drugs, they should take that provision out. The certification of savings is no less of a red herring. In fact, it has become a persistent roadblock every time we have passed certification to allow drug importation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Without a doubt, Americans would not purchase imported medications if substantial savings were not being realized. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has told us the countries from which we would import under this bill pay 35 to 55 percent less for brand prescription drugs and that we can realize a drug savings alone of $50 billion over 10 years. It should be patently obvious the savings part of certifying importation is a nonissue. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has confirmed those savings again, estimating that in addition to consumer savings, the Federal Government would save $10.6 billion--including the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that would achieve indisputable savings. Every cent of that savings, the CBO estimates, will be lost if the Cochran amendment is adopted because, as we all know, there would be no legal importation. The savings are clear. Yet the advocates of certification continue to insist certification is critical--particularly regarding safety. Yet what is needed is not a certification requirement, which simply is a stamp on the status quo, but real action to assure the safety of prescription drugs. By way of analogy, I would like to know where we would be if we applied this simple certification approach to other areas. Consider air travel. Americans embark on thousands of flights every day, but the travel of millions is not dependent on certifying the status quo. We rely on regulation and oversight of the aircraft that fly and their maintenance--of the individuals who crew, service, and direct those aircraft--of every critical aspect of aviation. If we were waiting for the FAA and its international partners to simply say flying is safe rather than acting to make it safe, we simply wouldn't have commercial air travel. I note that last week, as the Senate discussed problems with both the drug and food safety, I did not hear my colleagues suggest FDA certify that imported food is safe. We, instead, spoke about measures to make it so. That points to what this amendment is about--not ensuring safety but blocking fair access to imports for Americans. The fact is, Americans simply cannot see why it is that they cannot be provided a safe and effective system, which is exactly what the Dorgan-Snowe amendment does and what this legislation has been drafted to accomplish year in and year out. We have taken every conceivable concern regarding safety and incorporated it in this legislation. As you can see on this chart, we incorporate 31 provisions. Compare that to the Medicare Modernization Act, which included the Part D prescription drug program for seniors, that included only six safety- related provisions. We included 31 different provisions. That is crucial to understanding that this sets up a system that will allow FDA inspectors to approve registered prescription drugs imported from other countries--in fact, countries that meet or exceed our standards. Compare that, for example, to the fact that the FDA approves manufacturing facilities in other countries that actually have lower standards than our country does. We allow medications to be manufactured in other countries with lower standards than what we have. Yet we are now saying we will not allow importations of medications from countries that meet or exceed our standards. At a time in which American consumers are paying 35 to 55 percent more for drugs than foreign consumers--in fact, paying the highest prices in the world--this amounts to $99 billion more than the foreign consumers. That is what Americans pay today. Some would say: Oh, that affects research and development. Well, no, not exactly. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry spends about 10 percent of that $99 billion. So about $10 billion in research and development more than they do in Europe. So we are not seeing the increase in prices that Americans pay being channeled into more research and development. It simply is not the case. What this does say is that American consumers are paying more than anyone else in the world. Not only are they paying more for their drugs, but American taxpayers are underwriting the research and development, as we have seen obviously with the National Institutes of Health. The taxpayer understands how important it is that the Federal Government remain on the vanguard of research and development of life- threatening medications, and not only are they paying for the research and development that benefits foreign consumers, who are paying 35 to 55 percent less, but they are also paying the highest prices in the world. That is why this legislation allowing for drug importation is so essential. We have addressed every safety concern. We create a regime for tracking the shipments, creating a pedigree, creating a history with FDA approval--inspected and registered. So I would urge the Members of the Senate to defeat this certification amendment and to support the Dorgan-Snowe amendment. I think we have achieved a milestone moment in the Senate, where we have finally recognized and acknowledged that the day has come to allow Americans to take advantage of more competitive prices than have been available to them before. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize, for the week of April 29, an exceptional entrepreneur from my home State who has been awarded the Maine 2007 Small Business Person of the Year, Michael Boulet. Mike is truly one of our Nation's shining small business success stories. His company--Mainely Trusses--exemplifies the heart and soul of the American dream becoming reality. Last March, I had the privilege to witness first hand the products and services that Mike's company provides when he was awarded an intermediary relending program loan from Kennebec Valley Council of Governments. Mike's investment in his company through the Small Business Administrations' Maine Small Business Development Center and Costal Enterprises, Inc., has paid tremendous dividends for the future of Mainely Trusses--with a state-of-the-art facility, new technologies, a dedication to customer service, and full benefits for his employees. In fact, Mainely Trusses is so advanced that they use all laser beams to construct the trusses which is completely driven by computer software and highly skilled employees. Since Mike has been president, Mainely Trusses has shown no signs of slowing down, growing from 3 to 50 employees over the last 15 years--a tremendous achievement for any business. Think about it--that is a 1,600-percent increase. Just imagine if we had that kind of explosive progress in the U.S. Congress, then we would really be onto something. And what is all the more remarkable is Mike's courage to take on the family business after his father, John Boulet, passed away in a work- related accident. But Mike doesn't just reserve his considerable talents and energy for his business--he also exhibits those traits through his tireless leadership within the community whether serving as a member of the Maine Merchants Association Workers Compensation Trust Fund Broad of Trustees, chairing the board for the Central Maine Youth Hockey Association, supporting Habitat for Humanity, or his involvement with Vietnamese orphanages and children's center. The fact is small businesses are the critical element in our efforts to strengthen and bolster the Nation's economy. It used to be said, ``What's good for General Motors is good for the Nation.'' Now, it is what is good for small business is best for the Nation and job growth. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am reminded daily of the immense--and often overlooked--contributions that risk-takers and dreamers like Mike and countless Americans make. They are the unsung heroes of our Nation's economy, creating two-thirds of all new jobs throughout our country. That is why I appreciate SBA's commitment to providing our Nation's small businesses, as they have helped Mike, with the financial and business development tools to help them grow and excel. With more than 5.3 million jobs created or retained since 1999, this is proof-positive that our investment in the SBA is paying tremendous dividends to the Nation's economy. We understand that Maine is a veritable ``hotbed'' for small business and a small business laboratory for the country. This year, at the vanguard of Maine entrepreneurs stands Mike Boulet. Once again, I would like congratulate Mike for being an exceptional model for Maine and the Nation. We here in the Senate wish Mike all the best for many more successful years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

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