Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2007. This bill will enhance our Nation's existing ocean observation infrastructure and drastically improve our understanding of the marine environment. Oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, and have great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our livelihoods are based, and provide our Nation over 95,000 miles of shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities in many of our coastal States. Despite the constant, intricate interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon remains, by most accounts, a mystery. And yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In recent years, we have experienced first-hand the destruction the ocean can bring through disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita here in the United States, and the Indian Ocean tsunami felt in Indonesia and parts of Asia. We have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms and manmade pollution. The purpose of this legislation is to put that technology to work predicting these threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigate their impacts. This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends. My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. These data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with an interest in our oceans. The system continues to expand, with the 11th buoy in the system launched in December of 2006. The vast geographical range and frequency of measurements has led to unprecedented developments in scientific analysis of ocean conditions in the Gulf of Maine. It has also contributed invaluable information to our region's assessments of fisheries, weather conditions, and predictions of other ocean phenomena. Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems have been developed in other coastal regions as well. Data from these various systems, however, are often incompatible with one another, making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a result, these disparate systems may be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive national picture of coastal and ocean conditions. The Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2007 would rectify this situation by establishing, in cooperation with NOAA, an integrated system of ocean observing efforts. The bill would encourage creation of systems in areas that do not currently have one in place or in development, enable the data from all systems to be integrated and accessible through a national network, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean conditions or events. Oversight of the program would be the responsibility of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, a group comprised of the heads of fifteen Federal agencies that play roles in formulation of ocean policy. The Council would establish an interagency partnership to plan and coordinate activities, with NOAA serving as the lead Federal agency ensuring that the national network effectively integrates, utilizes, and publicizes ocean data to the benefit of the American public. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top ten'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce. This bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better monitor ocean conditions and providing timelier and more accurate predictions of potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena. It will save taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that comes in the wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the appreciation and understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to benefit all Americans. I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my co-sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Stevens, Boxer, Cardin, Kerry, Menendez, Collins, Lautenberg, Lott, Feinstein, Nelson, and Murkowski for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce two pieces of legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that have plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine, as well as in other parts of the country. What the first bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate. The second piece of legislation would enable those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as Empowerment Zones. To fully grasp the importance of the former legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County,'' as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. It shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness. As profoundly remote as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating effect on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number of quality jobs that residents require and deserve. While officials in the region have put forward a herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Center alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Maine State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England. In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a staggering 40 percent of 15- to 29-year-olds left during the last decade. The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start, and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars. Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities, such as Houlton, literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on one side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation across from a neighboring business on the other side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out-migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls. The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic hardship and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. With regards to the latter bill that I am offering today, I believe all Empowerment Zone communities need 15 years to reverse years of downward spiraling that originally effected their economies. I have long supported Empowerment Zone incentives and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal. In 1994, Congress designated the first Empowerment Zones setting 2009, a 15-year time frame, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of Empowerment Zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002. As a result of the expiration date some communities such as Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, are granted as few as 7 years to use tax incentives to overturn decades of decline and economic neglect. Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for Empowerment Zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, such as Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for Empowerment Zone status until 2002, are in dire need of the long-term 15-year window in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty. Businesses operating within Empowerment Zones receive a 20 percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses and industries to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in Empowerment Zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable and likely. Empowerment Zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners. To qualify for Empowerment Zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships among private businesses, non profits, state, local, and federal government agencies to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blue print to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects concentrate on building much-needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce, and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry. Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the Empowerment Zone, the County is making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine cannot be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry and other initiatives produce greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic plight, they will need more than seven years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III Empowerment Zone communities, such as Aroostook, who need the maximum, in order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas. I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of making a long-term pledge to communities using Empowerment Zone incentives to work its way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their states, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to support introduction of the Integrated Deepwater Reform Act. Since 1790, the United States Coast Guard has served as the guardian of our shores. It began its service to the Nation as a lifesaving organization, protecting our mariners from the perils of the sea. Over time, its missions have come to encompass additional responsibilities including performing drug and migrant interdiction, enforcing fisheries regulations, and maintaining our Nation's waterways and aids to navigation. Following the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, the Coast Guard expanded its role in homeland security operations, becoming the agency charged with protecting our Nation from maritime threats. Though we have expanded the role of this valiant service, we have not upgraded its equipment to the degree necessary to carry out the tasks it has been assigned. Current Coast Guard vessels comprise the third oldest naval fleet in the world. Some of its cutters still in service are over sixty years old. Recognizing the looming obsolescence of its legacy fleet, in the mid 1990s the Coast Guard embarked on an effort to create a wholly integrated system of ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications systems and called the effort Deepwater. Recapitalizing the Coast Guard remains one of this Nation's most important National Security initiatives. However, recent events have made it clear that additional Congressional oversight is warranted for this major acquisitions program. Failure of the 123-foot patrol boat conversion program, and questions about the fatigue life of the hull of the National Security Cutter under the purview of Integrated Coast Guard Systems have called into question the value of this ``lead systems integrator.'' The contract as written has given the contractor too much autonomy and not enough focus on actual performance. By placing restrictions on the structure of any agreements between the Coast Guard and its contractors, this bill will ensure that future Deepwater contracts protect the American taxpayer while allowing the Coast Guard to acquire the assets necessary to carry out its critical responsibilities. We cannot change the simple fact that in order to protect our Nation, the Coast Guard must be able to upgrade its existing assets. The safety of the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard, and the security of every American depends on the success of this program. I remain convinced that the Integrated Deepwater Program is the appropriate vehicle for the Coast Guard's modernization. However, in order for the Coast Guard to receive the best assets at the best value for the American taxpayer, Congress must ensure that the service and the contractors recognizes their joint commitment to both excellence and fiscal responsibility. By limiting the use of a lead systems integrator, increasing requirements for open competition, requiring additional internal Coast Guard management, and increasing reporting requirements to Congress, this bill provides that assurance. I am proud to add this bill to my record of Coast Guard oversight. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cantwell for all her hard work on this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to support introduction of the Integrated Deepwater Reform Act. Since 1790, the United States Coast Guard has served as the guardian of our shores. It began its service to the Nation as a lifesaving organization, protecting our mariners from the perils of the sea. Over time, its missions have come to encompass additional responsibilities including performing drug and migrant interdiction, enforcing fisheries regulations, and maintaining our Nation's waterways and aids to navigation. Following the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, the Coast Guard expanded its role in homeland security operations, becoming the agency charged with protecting our Nation from maritime threats. Though we have expanded the role of this valiant service, we have not upgraded its equipment to the degree necessary to carry out the tasks it has been assigned. Current Coast Guard vessels comprise the third oldest naval fleet in the world. Some of its cutters still in service are over sixty years old. Recognizing the looming obsolescence of its legacy fleet, in the mid 1990s the Coast Guard embarked on an effort to create a wholly integrated system of ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications systems and called the effort Deepwater. Recapitalizing the Coast Guard remains one of this Nation's most important National Security initiatives. However, recent events have made it clear that additional Congressional oversight is warranted for this major acquisitions program. Failure of the 123-foot patrol boat conversion program, and questions about the fatigue life of the hull of the National Security Cutter under the purview of Integrated Coast Guard Systems have called into question the value of this ``lead systems integrator.'' The contract as written has given the contractor too much autonomy and not enough focus on actual performance. By placing restrictions on the structure of any agreements between the Coast Guard and its contractors, this bill will ensure that future Deepwater contracts protect the American taxpayer while allowing the Coast Guard to acquire the assets necessary to carry out its critical responsibilities. We cannot change the simple fact that in order to protect our Nation, the Coast Guard must be able to upgrade its existing assets. The safety of the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard, and the security of every American depends on the success of this program. I remain convinced that the Integrated Deepwater Program is the appropriate vehicle for the Coast Guard's modernization. However, in order for the Coast Guard to receive the best assets at the best value for the American taxpayer, Congress must ensure that the service and the contractors recognizes their joint commitment to both excellence and fiscal responsibility. By limiting the use of a lead systems integrator, increasing requirements for open competition, requiring additional internal Coast Guard management, and increasing reporting requirements to Congress, this bill provides that assurance. I am proud to add this bill to my record of Coast Guard oversight. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Cantwell for all her hard work on this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce two pieces of legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that have plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine, as well as in other parts of the country. What the first bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate. The second piece of legislation would enable those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as Empowerment Zones. To fully grasp the importance of the former legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County,'' as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. It shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness. As profoundly remote as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating effect on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number of quality jobs that residents require and deserve. While officials in the region have put forward a herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Center alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Maine State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England. In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a staggering 40 percent of 15- to 29-year-olds left during the last decade. The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start, and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars. Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities, such as Houlton, literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on one side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation across from a neighboring business on the other side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out-migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls. The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic hardship and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. With regards to the latter bill that I am offering today, I believe all Empowerment Zone communities need 15 years to reverse years of downward spiraling that originally effected their economies. I have long supported Empowerment Zone incentives and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal. In 1994, Congress designated the first Empowerment Zones setting 2009, a 15-year time frame, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of Empowerment Zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002. As a result of the expiration date some communities such as Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, are granted as few as 7 years to use tax incentives to overturn decades of decline and economic neglect. Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for Empowerment Zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, such as Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for Empowerment Zone status until 2002, are in dire need of the long-term 15-year window in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty. Businesses operating within Empowerment Zones receive a 20 percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses and industries to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in Empowerment Zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable and likely. Empowerment Zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners. To qualify for Empowerment Zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships among private businesses, non profits, state, local, and federal government agencies to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blue print to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects concentrate on building much-needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce, and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry. Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the Empowerment Zone, the County is making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine cannot be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry and other initiatives produce greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic plight, they will need more than seven years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III Empowerment Zone communities, such as Aroostook, who need the maximum, in order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas. I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of making a long-term pledge to communities using Empowerment Zone incentives to work its way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their states, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007. Senators Pryor, Craig, and I are introducing this legislation to assist veterans and small businesses that employ Guard and reservists. Our bill improves the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. Additionally, this bill increases procurement opportunities, capital access, and other types of business development assistance for veterans and service-disabled veterans. We all know today's small business men and women play a vital role in the economic stability and prosperity of our Nation. Quite often, these same entrepreneurs are the veterans who have protected our Nation in years past, or who serve in the Armed Forces today. When our Nation's patriotic men and women are called to duty, they often leave behind thriving small businesses, and as a result, many of these businesses experience production slowdowns and lost sales, or incur additional expenses to compensate for an employee's absence. In recent years, the Department of Defense has placed a greater reliance on our country's Guard and Reserve Forces. In fact, since September 2001, nearly 600,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up in support of current operations, comprising nearly one-third of deployed service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Guard and Reserve members were charged with assisting recovery efforts in the gulf coast region in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In my 4 years as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and now as ranking member, I have fought to support our patriotic small businesses affected by the Guard and Reserve call- ups. My home State of Maine has one of the highest Guard and Reserve deployment levels in the country--over 50 percent have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to this I commissioned a Congressional Budget Office, CBO, study which found that 35 percent of Guard and reservists work for small busineses or are self-employed. In addition, the small businesses that employ them may be ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased Guard and Reserve member call-ups. The burden is further magnified when it is the small business owner or a key employee who is deployed. Our legislation will raise the maximum MREIDL amount from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. A maximum military reservist loan amount of $2,000,000 is the same level as many of the SBA's other loan programs, including: 7(a) loans, international trade loans, and 504 Certified Development Corporation loans that serve a public policy goal. Currently, some of the SBA's contracting and business development programs have defined time limits for participation. If the firm's time for participation expires prematurely, then competitive opportunities, investments, and jobs become lost. Today, small business owners who get called-up to active duty in the National Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized because their active duty time is counted against the time limitation participation in the SBA's programs. The Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the duration of their owners' active duty service after September 11, 2001. Additionally, this bill will allow the SBA Administrator, either directly or through banks, to offer loans up to $25,000 without requiring collateral from a loan applicant. Currently, the SBA offers military reservist loans up to $5,000 without collateral. This provision would increase that level to eligible small businesses. The bill will also require the Administrator to give military reservist loan applications priority for processing and ensure that Guard and Reserve members are adequately assisted with their loan application by incorporating the support and expertise of SBA entrepreneurial development partners, such as Small Business Development Centers and Veterans Business Outreach Centers. This legislation increases the authorization of appropriations for the SBA's Office of Veteran Business Development to $2 million for fiscal year 2008, $2.1 million for fiscal year 2009 and $2.2 million for fiscal year 2010. Increased funding for SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development help them better assist our Nation's veterans and provide the business services they need. This legislation will also strengthen the access of veterans and service-disabled veterans to Federal contracts and subcontracts. Under the Small Business Act and the President's Executive Order 13360, Providing Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran Businesses To Increase Their Federal Contracting and Subcontracting, Federal agencies must award at least 3 percent of prime contracts and subcontracts to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. The order states that, to achieve these goals, Federal agencies ``shall more effectively'' use the authorities in the Small Business Act to reserve and award contracts to service-disabled veterans. During the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing held in January, it became very clear that Federal agencies have been short-changing service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to the tune of over $7.5 billion a year in government contracts during fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. To remedy this unacceptable situation, our legislation puts the force of a congressional statute behind the requirements of the President's Executive order. In addition, our legislation ensures that veterans and service- disabled veterans do not face confusing and duplicative red tape before they can be eligible to access the Federal procurement market. Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the SBA both operate registration databases for small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans. A veteran must often register in both databases to be properly considered for bidding. Surely, in this information age, we can have a better process. Registration data can easily be made to migrate from one database to the other. Our legislation requires that a single registration point for both of these databases be established within a year. Such one-stop registration must be reliable and compliant with statutory provisions concerning veteran and service-disabled veteran status certifications for small businesses. To increase the capacity of service-disabled veteran-owned firms, my legislation permits the SBA, in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to develop a business development assistance program, including mentor-protege assistance, to be administered by the SBA. Our legislation contains a strict fairness requirement that any such program must be developed in such a way as to ensure success of other small business contracting programs. Within a year, the SBA is required to submit a report to Congress on its proposals for this program. In 2004, I succeeded in amending the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program statute by expanding it to service-disabled veterans. Since then, over $204 million in contracts and subcontracts have been awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses as a result of the $17 million in mentor-Protege assistance. This represents a stunning $12 return for every $1 in assistance investment. I believe the success of this initiative should be replicated. The SBA is already administering a Mentor-Protege Program as part of the 8(a) business development program for small disadvantaged businesses, and both the SBA and the DOD programs would provide useful examples for helping our disabled veterans succeed. Finally, our legislation creates an interagency task force among Federal agencies charged with improving procurement opportunities for service-disabled veterans. The scope of this task force will, in addition to procurement, include franchising, capital access, and other types of business development assistance. In examining the implementation of Executive Order 13360 and other veterans business development initiatives, our committee found that the responsible agencies were not talking to each other on a regular basis, and that no overall ``game plan'' was in place to coordinate various Federal efforts. I would like to thank Senators Pryor and Craig for working with me on this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007. Senators Pryor, Craig, and I are introducing this legislation to assist veterans and small businesses that employ Guard and reservists. Our bill improves the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. Additionally, this bill increases procurement opportunities, capital access, and other types of business development assistance for veterans and service-disabled veterans. We all know today's small business men and women play a vital role in the economic stability and prosperity of our Nation. Quite often, these same entrepreneurs are the veterans who have protected our Nation in years past, or who serve in the Armed Forces today. When our Nation's patriotic men and women are called to duty, they often leave behind thriving small businesses, and as a result, many of these businesses experience production slowdowns and lost sales, or incur additional expenses to compensate for an employee's absence. In recent years, the Department of Defense has placed a greater reliance on our country's Guard and Reserve Forces. In fact, since September 2001, nearly 600,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up in support of current operations, comprising nearly one-third of deployed service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Guard and Reserve members were charged with assisting recovery efforts in the gulf coast region in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In my 4 years as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and now as ranking member, I have fought to support our patriotic small businesses affected by the Guard and Reserve call- ups. My home State of Maine has one of the highest Guard and Reserve deployment levels in the country--over 50 percent have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to this I commissioned a Congressional Budget Office, CBO, study which found that 35 percent of Guard and reservists work for small busineses or are self-employed. In addition, the small businesses that employ them may be ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased Guard and Reserve member call-ups. The burden is further magnified when it is the small business owner or a key employee who is deployed. Our legislation will raise the maximum MREIDL amount from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. A maximum military reservist loan amount of $2,000,000 is the same level as many of the SBA's other loan programs, including: 7(a) loans, international trade loans, and 504 Certified Development Corporation loans that serve a public policy goal. Currently, some of the SBA's contracting and business development programs have defined time limits for participation. If the firm's time for participation expires prematurely, then competitive opportunities, investments, and jobs become lost. Today, small business owners who get called-up to active duty in the National Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized because their active duty time is counted against the time limitation participation in the SBA's programs. The Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the duration of their owners' active duty service after September 11, 2001. Additionally, this bill will allow the SBA Administrator, either directly or through banks, to offer loans up to $25,000 without requiring collateral from a loan applicant. Currently, the SBA offers military reservist loans up to $5,000 without collateral. This provision would increase that level to eligible small businesses. The bill will also require the Administrator to give military reservist loan applications priority for processing and ensure that Guard and Reserve members are adequately assisted with their loan application by incorporating the support and expertise of SBA entrepreneurial development partners, such as Small Business Development Centers and Veterans Business Outreach Centers. This legislation increases the authorization of appropriations for the SBA's Office of Veteran Business Development to $2 million for fiscal year 2008, $2.1 million for fiscal year 2009 and $2.2 million for fiscal year 2010. Increased funding for SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development help them better assist our Nation's veterans and provide the business services they need. This legislation will also strengthen the access of veterans and service-disabled veterans to Federal contracts and subcontracts. Under the Small Business Act and the President's Executive Order 13360, Providing Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran Businesses To Increase Their Federal Contracting and Subcontracting, Federal agencies must award at least 3 percent of prime contracts and subcontracts to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. The order states that, to achieve these goals, Federal agencies ``shall more effectively'' use the authorities in the Small Business Act to reserve and award contracts to service-disabled veterans. During the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing held in January, it became very clear that Federal agencies have been short-changing service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to the tune of over $7.5 billion a year in government contracts during fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. To remedy this unacceptable situation, our legislation puts the force of a congressional statute behind the requirements of the President's Executive order. In addition, our legislation ensures that veterans and service- disabled veterans do not face confusing and duplicative red tape before they can be eligible to access the Federal procurement market. Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the SBA both operate registration databases for small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans. A veteran must often register in both databases to be properly considered for bidding. Surely, in this information age, we can have a better process. Registration data can easily be made to migrate from one database to the other. Our legislation requires that a single registration point for both of these databases be established within a year. Such one-stop registration must be reliable and compliant with statutory provisions concerning veteran and service-disabled veteran status certifications for small businesses. To increase the capacity of service-disabled veteran-owned firms, my legislation permits the SBA, in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to develop a business development assistance program, including mentor-protege assistance, to be administered by the SBA. Our legislation contains a strict fairness requirement that any such program must be developed in such a way as to ensure success of other small business contracting programs. Within a year, the SBA is required to submit a report to Congress on its proposals for this program. In 2004, I succeeded in amending the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program statute by expanding it to service-disabled veterans. Since then, over $204 million in contracts and subcontracts have been awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses as a result of the $17 million in mentor-Protege assistance. This represents a stunning $12 return for every $1 in assistance investment. I believe the success of this initiative should be replicated. The SBA is already administering a Mentor-Protege Program as part of the 8(a) business development program for small disadvantaged businesses, and both the SBA and the DOD programs would provide useful examples for helping our disabled veterans succeed. Finally, our legislation creates an interagency task force among Federal agencies charged with improving procurement opportunities for service-disabled veterans. The scope of this task force will, in addition to procurement, include franchising, capital access, and other types of business development assistance. In examining the implementation of Executive Order 13360 and other veterans business development initiatives, our committee found that the responsible agencies were not talking to each other on a regular basis, and that no overall ``game plan'' was in place to coordinate various Federal efforts. I would like to thank Senators Pryor and Craig for working with me on this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of bills that are important to economic development along our long coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA legislation in the 110th Congress. Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers. The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel. My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways. The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience. Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers. The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million dollars a year in the state. I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor. I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system. My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue. The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language. It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic development for their coastal communities. Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests. Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of bills that are important to economic development along our long coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA legislation in the 110th Congress. Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers. The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel. My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways. The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience. Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers. The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million dollars a year in the state. I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor. I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system. My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue. The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language. It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic development for their coastal communities. Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests. Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Bunning, Bingaman, Salazar, Coleman, Smith, Allard and Cornyn that addresses the critical issue of the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2007. The Senators have come together--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign oil . . . the historically high costs of energy . . . the state of our environment . . . and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to further securing our nation and its future. The EXTEND Act takes a comprehensive and practical approach to assure that the United States targets the maximum possible energy savings on the customer side of the meter and relief from high energy prices at the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings adopted in Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them where necessary to achieve these policy goals. The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing four years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make rational investments as these buildings will be in use for at least 50 to 100 years. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. I want to encourage large and small businesses alike to make investments to qualify for energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides four years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with longer lead times. Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of incentives based truly on performance. The bipartisan legislation also extends the applicability of the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders and equipment manufacturers. I have worked hard over the past six years for performance-based energy tax incentives for commercial buildings--one third of energy usage is from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made with the extension of these incentives. It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide electric capacity for the year 2017. In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs. The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in utility bills by 2018, as a direct result of the reductions in energy consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households over an additional $30 billion annually. The EXTEND Act is synonymous with the security of America's future. The bill is a piece of an overall national energy picture that we need to address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move to substantive energy policy legislation such as the EXTEND Act. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we cannot wait for yet another crisis. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the Administration to provide the American people the leadership they deserve on these issues. And I would like to add some of the organizations and industries that support this legislation as it is a formidable list: Alliance to Save Energy; American Public Power Association; American Standard Companies; American Chemistry Council; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Commission; Anderson Windows, Inc.; Building Owners and Managers Association International; California Energy Commission; Cardinal Glass Industries; The Dow Chemical Company; DuPont; Edison Electric Institute; Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Exelon Corporation; 3M Company; Manufactured Housing Institute; National Association of State Energy Officials; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; North American Insulation Manufacturers Association; Northeast Public Power Association; Owens Corning; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Plug Power, Inc.; Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; The Real Estate Roundtable; Residential Energy Services Network; Retail Industry Leaders Association; Sacramento Municipal Utility District; San Diego Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Gas Company; Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Bunning, Bingaman, Salazar, Coleman, Smith, Allard and Cornyn that addresses the critical issue of the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2007. The Senators have come together--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign oil . . . the historically high costs of energy . . . the state of our environment . . . and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to further securing our nation and its future. The EXTEND Act takes a comprehensive and practical approach to assure that the United States targets the maximum possible energy savings on the customer side of the meter and relief from high energy prices at the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings adopted in Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them where necessary to achieve these policy goals. The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing four years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make rational investments as these buildings will be in use for at least 50 to 100 years. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. I want to encourage large and small businesses alike to make investments to qualify for energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides four years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with longer lead times. Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of incentives based truly on performance. The bipartisan legislation also extends the applicability of the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders and equipment manufacturers. I have worked hard over the past six years for performance-based energy tax incentives for commercial buildings--one third of energy usage is from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made with the extension of these incentives. It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide electric capacity for the year 2017. In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs. The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in utility bills by 2018, as a direct result of the reductions in energy consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households over an additional $30 billion annually. The EXTEND Act is synonymous with the security of America's future. The bill is a piece of an overall national energy picture that we need to address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move to substantive energy policy legislation such as the EXTEND Act. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we cannot wait for yet another crisis. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the Administration to provide the American people the leadership they deserve on these issues. And I would like to add some of the organizations and industries that support this legislation as it is a formidable list: Alliance to Save Energy; American Public Power Association; American Standard Companies; American Chemistry Council; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Commission; Anderson Windows, Inc.; Building Owners and Managers Association International; California Energy Commission; Cardinal Glass Industries; The Dow Chemical Company; DuPont; Edison Electric Institute; Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Exelon Corporation; 3M Company; Manufactured Housing Institute; National Association of State Energy Officials; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; North American Insulation Manufacturers Association; Northeast Public Power Association; Owens Corning; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Plug Power, Inc.; Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; The Real Estate Roundtable; Residential Energy Services Network; Retail Industry Leaders Association; Sacramento Municipal Utility District; San Diego Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Gas Company; Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. While reading the recent news reports regarding the situation at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, I was incensed when I discovered that our brave men and women who have risked their lives in service to our country are currently convalescing under conditions that are nothing less than disgraceful--and, frankly, disrespectful of all who so honorably wear our Nation's uniform. This abomination is a far cry from the timeless words of President Theodore Roosevelt, who once said that ``a man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards.'' I applaud Senators Obama and McCaskill for swiftly responding to these shameful revelations by introducing this legislation at a time when more than 600,000 courageous service men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past, Senator Obama and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to bolster the military's ability to detect and treat traumatic brain injury, reduce the claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA, and most recently, we have fought to improve the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of returning veterans health care and benefits needs. I also appreciate Senator McCaskill's advocacy on this issue, and I look forward to working with her in the future. During the past few weeks, the Washington Post has reported in scrupulous detail the dire and startling conditions at recuperation facilities used by Walter Reed Army Medical Center--the very facility replete with moldy walls, broken elevators, bug infestation, a lack of support programs, and general disrepair. These confines are not even habitable, not to mention acceptable, in any way, shape or form for the provision of health care to America's finest. Above all, such degrading medical quarters ultimately send the wrong message to our troops who have risked their lives in defense of our country that somehow they are fit and capable enough to serve us but not enough for us to serve them. Although the Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital has remained the preeminent health facility for wounded and recovering service members ever since the admittance of its first patients on May 1, 1909, these recent news reports have uncovered blatant defects in U.S. military health facilities that must be fixed immediately. In order to ensure that these stalwart Americans receive the treatment they have earned and that is unquestionably well deserved, this legislation will establish stringent standards for military outpatient housing, requiring that concomitant dormitories match the existing services standard for Active-Duty barracks, and mandating that all requests for repairs be completed within 15 days or alternate housing must be offered. Additionally, recent reports have revealed Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital's lack of support counseling to assist troops and their families in times of need. To alleviate these concerns, our legislation will require an emergency medical technician, EMT, and a crisis counselor at all outpatient residences, while creating an inspection team to ensure that high-level military officials are aware of all problems occurring at medical facilities, including those related to personnel and maintenance. Furthermore, the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act will help solve recent problems regarding the overwhelming workloads for military caseworkers, which have, unfortunately, left countless service members helpless. This legislation will not only increase the number of caseworkers at military outpatient facilities but will establish an interim ratio of one caseworker and one supervising noncommissioned officer for each 20 recovering service members, while requiring staff training for the identification of mental illness and suicide prevention. This legislation will also address the processing delays for troops who seek a determination for their military status and disability level, which on average, takes as long as 7 months. This legislation would bring the Physical Disability Evaluation System under one command in order to reduce lengthy bureaucratic delays that have left even the most severely injured service members without a health determination for unnecessary lengths of time. Family members also carry a large burden for the sacrifices made by their loved ones in uniform. In order to ease the burdens of the health care process for these families, our legislation creates two 24-hour crisis counseling and family assistance hotlines and requires the creation of a single manual for outpatient care procedures, which will allow families to access all of the information they need to help care for their loved one. Sadly, family members are often forced to decide between attending to their loved one or keeping their job--a decision that no family member of our courageous troops should ever have to make. Therefore, this legislation provides Federal protections for the jobs of family members who are caring for a recovering service member, while extending medical care to family members who are living at military treatment facilities. And finally, one of the underlying concerns of the revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital was the lack of accountability and oversight at a facility which houses thousands of heroic Americans. This legislation would create a Wounded Warrior Oversight Board appointed by congressional leadership who will supervise the implementation of this legislation's provisions and serve as an advocate for all recovering service members in the future. The obligation of this country to its veterans is sacred and solemn and one that must be fulfilled every day. We should strive to put into action the words of President Lincoln that we must ``care for him who shall have borne the battle . . .'' Since the attacks of September 11, millions of valorous American men and women have fearlessly and honorably answered the call to service. Congress must now do its duty and everything in its power to vigorously extend the finest medical treatment and care possible to troops upon their return--attention that is worthy of their tremendous and immeasurable contributions to us all. Once again, I am pleased to join Senators Obama and McCaskill in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act because I believe it is crucial for Congress to provide our Nation's veterans with a guarantee that they will never have to worry about dilapidated living conditions in military hospitals ever again, and I urge my colleagues to voice their support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this year marks the 85th anniversary of the founding of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA. I rise today to submit with my colleague, Senator Menendez, a concurrent resolution honoring AHEPA's history of service, not only to Americans of Greek descent, but to Americans of all backgrounds and to the United States itself. AHEPA was founded in 1922 to combat the bigotry encountered by Greek immigrants to this country, and to assist these new Americans with building and protecting their livelihoods in our great Nation. Eighty- five years later--decades in which generations of Greek-Americans worked tirelessly in commerce and fought patriotically on the battlefield to make the United States the prosperous and peaceful land it is today--AHEPA continues its mission to promote the shared Hellenic and American values of education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence. This is more than a mission statement, it is a commitment to action that has been fulfilled time and again. AHEPA today awards more than half a million dollars in academic scholarships annually. Its philanthropic efforts have contributed to the restoration of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. It has enhanced the civic participation of its members and other U.S. citizens through seminars and conferences on key domestic and international policy issues. And, together with three affiliated organizations--the Daughters of Penelope, the Sons of Pericles and the Maids of Athena--AHEPA has contributed to over a billion dollars in funding for youth- and family-focused projects across the country. As the first Greek-American woman elected to both the House and Senate, I am often reminded that the connection between the U.S. Congress and the Greek people is not limited to the Greek Americans who have served as members, or the foreign policy issues debated in its halls. Rather, the very inspiration for the Congress as a legislative body are the democratic chambers of ancient Greece. The myriad ties between our two countries--be they cultural, economic or geopolitical--comprise a bond that can and should only strengthen. AHEPA's long record of service to Greek-Americans and their countrymen are both a testament and critical component of that historical bond. It is accordingly an honor and a pleasure to submit this concurrent resolution recognizing the accomplishments of AHEPA's first 85 years. May there be many, many more.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you may know, Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974. At that time, less than 20 percent of the private real property in this area was owned by Turkish Cypriots, with the rest owned by Greek Cypriots and foreigners. Turkey's invasion and subsequent occupation of northern Cyprus displaced people who are to this day prevented by the Turkish Armed Forces from returning to and repossessing their homes and properties. A large proportion of these properties were distributed to, and are currently being used by, the 120,000 Turkish settlers brought into the occupied area by Turkey. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. nationals today claim an interest in such property. Adding urgency to the plight of Greek-Cypriots and Americans who lost property in the wake of the invasion is a recent property development boom in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus. As an ever-increasing number of disputed properties are transferred or developed, the rightful owners' prospects for recovering their property or being compensated worsen. In 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had unlawfully deprived Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their properties in the north of the island. The Court ruled that the Government of Turkey was obliged to compensate the refugees for such deprivation, and to allow them to return home. It is to provide similar redress to the American victims of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus that my colleague Senator Menendez and I today introduce the ``American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act''. This act would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate and determine awards with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of northern Cyprus. To provide funds from which these awards would be paid, the act would urge the President to authorize the Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement for settlement of such claims with the Government of Turkey. The act would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over suits by U.S. nationa1s against any private persons, other than Turkey, occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. Lastly, the act would expressly waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S. nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial activity carried out in the United States. This bill represents an important step toward righting the internationally recognized wrong of the expropriation of property, including American property, in northern Cyprus in the wake of the 1974 invasion by the Turkish Army. I strongly urge my colleagues to promptly consider and pass this critical piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you may know, Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974. At that time, less than 20 percent of the private real property in this area was owned by Turkish Cypriots, with the rest owned by Greek Cypriots and foreigners. Turkey's invasion and subsequent occupation of northern Cyprus displaced people who are to this day prevented by the Turkish Armed Forces from returning to and repossessing their homes and properties. A large proportion of these properties were distributed to, and are currently being used by, the 120,000 Turkish settlers brought into the occupied area by Turkey. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. nationals today claim an interest in such property. Adding urgency to the plight of Greek-Cypriots and Americans who lost property in the wake of the invasion is a recent property development boom in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus. As an ever-increasing number of disputed properties are transferred or developed, the rightful owners' prospects for recovering their property or being compensated worsen. In 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had unlawfully deprived Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their properties in the north of the island. The Court ruled that the Government of Turkey was obliged to compensate the refugees for such deprivation, and to allow them to return home. It is to provide similar redress to the American victims of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus that my colleague Senator Menendez and I today introduce the ``American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act''. This act would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate and determine awards with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of northern Cyprus. To provide funds from which these awards would be paid, the act would urge the President to authorize the Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement for settlement of such claims with the Government of Turkey. The act would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over suits by U.S. nationa1s against any private persons, other than Turkey, occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. Lastly, the act would expressly waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S. nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial activity carried out in the United States. This bill represents an important step toward righting the internationally recognized wrong of the expropriation of property, including American property, in northern Cyprus in the wake of the 1974 invasion by the Turkish Army. I strongly urge my colleagues to promptly consider and pass this critical piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to the Senate regarding the fact that we are contemplating adjournment for a recess of approximately 12 days without having taken any votes on the question of Iraq. The Senator from Nebraska and I sent a letter to both leaders yesterday, expressing our deepest disappointment and disapproval about the failure of this institution to address the most consequential issue of our time. We are at a critical crossroads with this preeminent issue. Yet the Senate, in keeping with its historical traditions and practices, has failed to grapple with this monumental question. Therefore, the Senator from Nebraska and I have said we should have a vote on the motion to adjourn for this particular recess because we object to recessing without the Senate having any agreement, any understanding, any debate, any votes on this most profound question. It does no honor to the Senate or to this country. As I said earlier in the week when I expressed my disappointment that we have yet to construct an agreement on how to even move forward procedurally to debate a nonbinding resolution, irrespective of where my colleagues may stand on this question, whether you are in the majority or in the minority, various viewpoints ought to be able to be expressed, and we ought to be able to have votes in the Senate. Unfortunately and regrettably, that has not occurred, at a time in which the President has already indicated his plan for the troop surge and which is already underway. There is a majority in the Senate who are in opposition to the troop surge and to that specific mission. Others have different viewpoints on the question. But irrespective, we know there are a majority in the United States who are in opposition to the troop surge. The Senator from Nebraska and I, in fact, moved across the political aisle and joined the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Michigan on the Biden-Levin-Hagel-Snowe resolution on January 17, when it was introduced in the Senate. Here we are today, a month later, and there has been no consequential action on the question of Iraq. The House of Representatives is debating and will be voting. As I said on Monday, when our troops are on the frontlines, the Senate is on the sidelines. While the House of Representatives is debating and voting, the Senate is dithering. That is regrettable because we have some serious questions about the President's troop surge. We ought to be able to express our views on the floor of the Senate and to have those votes. This is a critical moment in our Nation. The Senate has lost its sense of the place it now occupies--or should occupy--in history. If we look back at major moments of the Senate historically, the Senate has risen to the occasion, but we haven't on this question. So we are going to adjourn for the recess without having a plan on how we are going to proceed on this question, without any votes, on the major issue of our time. So what has changed in the last 3 days? There have been no negotiations. There has been no consensus. There has been no agreement. There has been no understanding of how we are going to proceed and how we are going to debate this question. And we are going to recess. Well, the troop surge isn't taking a recess. The men and women in uniform on the frontlines in Iraq are not taking a recess, the Iraq war is not taking a recess, but the U.S. Senate is taking a recess. My primary objection to the troop surge has been rooted in the fact that I examined the track record and concluded we should not commit any more troops to instilling a peace that the Iraqis are not willing to instill for themselves and to seek for their own nation. They are fighting amongst themselves rather than for themselves. Yesterday, I spoke with the father of a soldier who died last Friday while supporting our Operation Iraqi Freedom. SSG Eric Ross of Maine, stationed in Texas, and two of his brothers in arms were killed as they entered a booby-trapped building in Baquba. What was even more tragic is the Iraqi squad that was accompanying them, who were supposed to go in with them, refused to go in. What did they know? Why did they refuse to go in? Where were their allegiances? Who were they fighting for? Those are the kinds of circumstances and situations to which our troops have been subjected. There will be infinitely more of those examples, given the mission the President has proposed in Baghdad. The father of the soldier told me: My son's first interpreter was a spy. Those are the kinds of precarious and dangerous circumstances under which our soldiers are facing extraordinary challenges. Now they are being requested to go door-to-door in Baghdad, as this soldier was doing in Baquba. His father said they were going door to door, clearing them out, only to find they were coming back in. That is the circumstance our troops will face in this very dangerous mission in Baghdad. While we are on recess, all of this will be underway. Yet we have no plan to debate and to vote on our respective views and positions on this question. This is not in keeping and consistent with the traditions and practices of the Senate. I have served in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for 29 years. I have witnessed and been part of debates that range from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf to Somalia to Bosnia to Panama. We were able to exercise our views, whether we were in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. I am deeply disappointed that we are at this juncture, that we are planning to adjourn for a previously scheduled recess without having established a record on behalf of the Senate for the people of this country. We are their voice. We reflect their will. We should have the opportunity to debate and to vote on the various questions. The fact is, we have allowed the gears of this deliberative process to become jammed with the monkey wrenches of timidity and partisanship. I reject that because at a time in which the American people are deeply concerned about the direction of our mission in Iraq, the Senate is deadlocked and stalemated. That is why I object to the motion to adjourn. I hope my colleagues will express their objections, likewise, irrespective of where Members stand on the question. I hope Members express disappointment and disapproval that we will recess without having taken a stand on this monumental issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter the ``Private Disaster Loans Act of 2007.'' This legislation streamlines the current disaster loan program and allows private banks to make loans to disaster victims. As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am committed to providing the Small Business Administration, SBA, with the tools necessary to help small businesses and homeowners recover in the wake of a disaster. With the SBA at the forefront of disaster relief efforts, Congress must support the agency to ensure that this country's 25 million small businesses have a resource they can depend on when disaster strikes. It is essential that we create a program to utilize existing infrastructure and provide immediate, much-needed aid to disaster victims. I have made reforming and improving the disaster loan program a top priority. The legislation I am introducing today, the Private Disaster Loans Act of 2007, is designed to remedy some of the problems that prevented or delayed disaster victims from receiving immediate and necessary funding following the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes. Homeowners and businesses are the bedrock of communities across this Nation, and keeping them healthy, happy, and economically viable will enhance and improve the disaster recovery process. My bill is an important step in the right direction. The creation of private disaster loan program will give the SBA the opportunity to work with private banks to improve the lending process in the wake of another devastating disaster, as in the case of September 11 or the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes. Because these private disaster loans will be made by qualified private lenders, borrowers will have an efficient alternative for accessing disaster assistance instead of depending solely on the SBA. Under my proposal, the maximum PDL loan size will be $2 million, with a maximum SBA guaranty of 85 percent, no matter the size of the loan. The maximum term will be 25 years if collateral is involved; otherwise, the maximum term for uncollateralized loans will be 15 years. These loans can be used for any purposes that are authorized under the standard SBA disaster loan program. There will be no SBA guaranty fee for PDLs. In addition, there will be a loan origination fee paid to lenders by the SBA using authorized funds appropriated for the standard disaster loan program. The size standard used to determine a borrower's eligibility for the PDL program will be the standard currently used in the 7(a) or 504 loan program. This will provide greater flexibility to the lenders and foster more incentive for use of the program. For documenting each loan, lenders would be allowed to use their own documents, subject to SBA approval, and would also be permitted to create an internet, or electronic, application process. As we learned all too well after the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, it is critical for our Government agencies to be as prepared as possible when disaster strikes. As we move forward during the 110th Congress, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to get this vital legislation passed, and to support the SBA in its continuing mission to assist the country's small business community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we face concerns about infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half century ago, following the development of modem antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet summed up what many experts believed when he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life.'' How things have changed! Today we face grave concern about pandemic influenza, and in fact every day many of the most serious health threats come from infectious diseases. When we consider the greatest killers--HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--it is clear that infectious diseases have not abated. At the same time we have seen an alarming trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is critical to address preserving lifesaving antibiotic drugs for use in treating disease. Today over nine out of ten Americans understand that resistance to antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that that colds and flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment. When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. I have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as Bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs, both to address natural and man-made threats. It is so counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse render them ineffective. Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities for no treatment purpose whatsoever. I am speaking of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals. Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions. In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. Two years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease. In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. We must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored. This is why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again introducing the ``Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act''. This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health. Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within two years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. The Act authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray their costs, and it also establishes research and demonstration programs that reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. The Act also requires data collection from manufacturers so that the types and amounts of antibiotics used in animals can be monitored. As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007,'' which will increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friend Senator Bond from Missouri, as well as my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, have agreed to co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation. Regrettably, our Nation's healthcare system is in the midst of a crisis. Each year, more and more Americans are unable to purchase health insurance, and there are no signs that things are improving. As evidence, the United States Census Bureau estimates that nearly 47 million people did not have health insurance coverage in 2005. Sadly, this number rose from 41.2 million uninsured persons in 2001--a 13 percent increase. The lack of health insurance is even more troubling when we look specifically at the small business sector of our economy. In 2005, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a non-partisan health policy group, nearly 63 percent of all uninsured workers were either self-employed or working for private-sector firms with fewer than 100 employees. In comparison, only 13.4 percent of workers in firms with more than 1,000 employees do not have health insurance. These numbers demonstrate that the majority of uninsured Americans work for small enterprises. So why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our economic growth, so disadvantaged when it comes to purchasing health insurance? The main reason that small business owners do not offer their employees health insurance is because many of them cannot afford to provide any health insurance, or other benefits to their employees. Many other small companies can only afford to pay a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums. As a result, many small business employees must acquire health insurance from the private sector rather than through their work place. This more expensive alternative is not practical or possible for the majority of the uninsured. Clearly, we have a problem on our hands. While we can debate among ourselves why this crisis exists, and how we ended up here, what is not open for debate is that we need to start identifying ways to fix the system. It is simply unconscionable to do nothing while more and more Americans find themselves without health insurance and health care. Currently, many large companies, and even the Federal Government, allow their employees to purchase health insurance, and other qualified benefits, with tax-free dollars. Larger companies are able to offer these accounts because they meet the specific qualifications outlined in the tax code. Cafeteria plans is one means for employers to offer health benefits with pretax dollars. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs where employees can purchase a range of qualified benefits. Specifically, cafeteria plans offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while allowing them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing benefits at a lower cost because their employers are often able to obtain a reduced group rate price for their benefits. Typically, in cafeteria plans, a combination of employer contributions and employee contributions are used to fund the accounts that employees used to buy specific benefits. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, life and disability insurance. Unfortunately, long term care insurance is NOT currently a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans. I will come back to long term care insurance in a moment. Clearly, cafeteria plans play a critical role in our Nation's health care system. The problem though, is that in order for companies to qualify for cafeteria plans they must satisfy the tax code's strict non-discrimination rules. These rules exist to ensure that companies offer the same benefits to their non-highly compensated employees that they offer to their highly compensated employees. These rules strive to ensure that non-highly compensated employees in fact receive a substantial portion of the employee benefits companies provide. Now, I want to be clear. I believe that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose and are necessary employee protections. Indeed, we need to ensure that employers are not able to game the tax system so that the cafeteria plans that qualify for preferential tax treatment are used by a majority of a companies' employees. At the same time these benefits must be made available to small companies and not just large companies. Unfortunately, we often hear that small businesses lose skilled employees to larger companies simply because the bigger firm is able to offer a more generous employee benefit package. Many small firms have relatively few employees and a high proportion of owners or highly compensated individuals. Right now, if these small companies opened cafeteria plans they will likely violate the nondiscrimination rules, and subject their workers and organizations to taxable penalties. Consequently, many small companies simply forgo opening cafeteria plans and offering more comprehensive employee benefits because they fear they will violate the non-discrimination rules. According to the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, though roughly 38 million U.S. workers had access to cafeteria plans, only 19 percent of those workers were employees of small businesses. Allowing small business to offer cafeteria plans would provide them with much needed employee recruiting and retention tools. If more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits these firms will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain talented workers. This will ultimately increase their business output. In order to help small companies increase their employees access to health insurance and other benefits, and help them compete for talented professionals, I am introducing the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act. This bill will enable small business employees to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars in the same way that many employees of large companies already do in their cafeteria plans. My bill accomplishes this by creating a SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan, which is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees, SIMPLE, pension plan. As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees, or who is willing to match contributions, will be permitted to waive the non- discrimination rules that currently prevent them from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse. I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad-based benefits offered through cafeteria plans. In addition my bill will expand the types of qualified benefits that can be offered in SIMPLE cafeteria plans and existing cafeteria plans. These modifications will increase the benefits provided for all employees and the likelihood that employees will utilize their cafeteria plans to purchase these benefits. This legislation modifies rules that pertain to employer-provided dependent-care assistance plans. First, it would increase the current $5,000 annual contribution limitation of these plans to $10,000 for employees that claim two or more dependents on their tax return. This increase is significant because it will allow taxpayers to use their cafeteria accounts to pay for the care of their children and their elderly dependent family members. As the current baby-boomer generation continues to age, this scenario will become increasingly more common. The bill also works to address our aging populations' need for long- term care insurance. Here in the United States, nearly half of all seniors age 65 or older will need long-term care at some point in their life. Unfortunately, most seniors have not adequately prepared for this possibility, just as many working age individuals have not given much thought to their eventual long-term care needs. With the cost of a private room in a nursing home averaging more than $72,000 annually, many Americans risk losing their life savings--and jeopardizing their children's inheritance--by failing to properly plan for the long-term care services they will need as they grow older. To address this problem, this bill would allow employees to purchase long-term care insurance coverage through their cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements. Allowing employers to offer long-term care benefits through these accounts would make long-term care insurance more affordable and help Americans prepare for their future long-term care needs. Additionally, by including long-term care insurance as a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans employers will be able to include information about long-term care options in their employee benefit packages. This will help increase employee understanding of the need to plan for their care while also increasing their access to long-term care insurance. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, pay more than 45 percent of the private- sector's payroll, and generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. It is critical that small businesses are able to offer their employees cafeteria plans so that they may purchase the health care and other benefits that will provide security for their families. The ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007'' achieves these objectives, in a manner that employers and employees can afford. Although the use of pre-tax dollars to acquire these benefits reduces current Federal revenues, the opportunity to provide small business employees these same benefits currently enjoyed by the employees of the Federal Government, and larger companies, more than justifies this minimal investment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with you to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we face concerns about infectious disease which few could have anticipated. Over a half century ago, following the development of modem antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet summed up what many experts believed when he stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life.'' How things have changed! Today we face grave concern about pandemic influenza, and in fact every day many of the most serious health threats come from infectious diseases. When we consider the greatest killers--HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--it is clear that infectious diseases have not abated. At the same time we have seen an alarming trend as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is critical to address preserving lifesaving antibiotic drugs for use in treating disease. Today over nine out of ten Americans understand that resistance to antibiotics is a problem. Most Americans have learned that that colds and flu are caused by viruses, and recognize that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate. Our health care providers are more careful to discriminate when to use antibiotics, because they know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment. When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. I have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as Bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs, both to address natural and man-made threats. It is so counterproductive to develop antimicrobial drugs and see their misuse render them ineffective. Yet every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities for no treatment purpose whatsoever. I am speaking of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals. Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today, it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions. In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. Two years ago five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease. In a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. We must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, the use of these drugs in our environment cannot be ignored. This is why I have joined with Senator Kennedy in again introducing the ``Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act''. This bill phases out the nontherapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health. Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within two years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. The Act authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray their costs, and it also establishes research and demonstration programs that reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. The Act also requires data collection from manufacturers so that the types and amounts of antibiotics used in animals can be monitored. As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007,'' which will increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friend Senator Bond from Missouri, as well as my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, have agreed to co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation. Regrettably, our Nation's healthcare system is in the midst of a crisis. Each year, more and more Americans are unable to purchase health insurance, and there are no signs that things are improving. As evidence, the United States Census Bureau estimates that nearly 47 million people did not have health insurance coverage in 2005. Sadly, this number rose from 41.2 million uninsured persons in 2001--a 13 percent increase. The lack of health insurance is even more troubling when we look specifically at the small business sector of our economy. In 2005, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a non-partisan health policy group, nearly 63 percent of all uninsured workers were either self-employed or working for private-sector firms with fewer than 100 employees. In comparison, only 13.4 percent of workers in firms with more than 1,000 employees do not have health insurance. These numbers demonstrate that the majority of uninsured Americans work for small enterprises. So why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our economic growth, so disadvantaged when it comes to purchasing health insurance? The main reason that small business owners do not offer their employees health insurance is because many of them cannot afford to provide any health insurance, or other benefits to their employees. Many other small companies can only afford to pay a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums. As a result, many small business employees must acquire health insurance from the private sector rather than through their work place. This more expensive alternative is not practical or possible for the majority of the uninsured. Clearly, we have a problem on our hands. While we can debate among ourselves why this crisis exists, and how we ended up here, what is not open for debate is that we need to start identifying ways to fix the system. It is simply unconscionable to do nothing while more and more Americans find themselves without health insurance and health care. Currently, many large companies, and even the Federal Government, allow their employees to purchase health insurance, and other qualified benefits, with tax-free dollars. Larger companies are able to offer these accounts because they meet the specific qualifications outlined in the tax code. Cafeteria plans is one means for employers to offer health benefits with pretax dollars. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs where employees can purchase a range of qualified benefits. Specifically, cafeteria plans offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while allowing them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing benefits at a lower cost because their employers are often able to obtain a reduced group rate price for their benefits. Typically, in cafeteria plans, a combination of employer contributions and employee contributions are used to fund the accounts that employees used to buy specific benefits. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, life and disability insurance. Unfortunately, long term care insurance is NOT currently a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans. I will come back to long term care insurance in a moment. Clearly, cafeteria plans play a critical role in our Nation's health care system. The problem though, is that in order for companies to qualify for cafeteria plans they must satisfy the tax code's strict non-discrimination rules. These rules exist to ensure that companies offer the same benefits to their non-highly compensated employees that they offer to their highly compensated employees. These rules strive to ensure that non-highly compensated employees in fact receive a substantial portion of the employee benefits companies provide. Now, I want to be clear. I believe that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose and are necessary employee protections. Indeed, we need to ensure that employers are not able to game the tax system so that the cafeteria plans that qualify for preferential tax treatment are used by a majority of a companies' employees. At the same time these benefits must be made available to small companies and not just large companies. Unfortunately, we often hear that small businesses lose skilled employees to larger companies simply because the bigger firm is able to offer a more generous employee benefit package. Many small firms have relatively few employees and a high proportion of owners or highly compensated individuals. Right now, if these small companies opened cafeteria plans they will likely violate the nondiscrimination rules, and subject their workers and organizations to taxable penalties. Consequently, many small companies simply forgo opening cafeteria plans and offering more comprehensive employee benefits because they fear they will violate the non-discrimination rules. According to the Employers' Council on Flexible Compensation, though roughly 38 million U.S. workers had access to cafeteria plans, only 19 percent of those workers were employees of small businesses. Allowing small business to offer cafeteria plans would provide them with much needed employee recruiting and retention tools. If more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits these firms will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain talented workers. This will ultimately increase their business output. In order to help small companies increase their employees access to health insurance and other benefits, and help them compete for talented professionals, I am introducing the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act. This bill will enable small business employees to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars in the same way that many employees of large companies already do in their cafeteria plans. My bill accomplishes this by creating a SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan, which is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees, SIMPLE, pension plan. As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees, or who is willing to match contributions, will be permitted to waive the non- discrimination rules that currently prevent them from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse. I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad-based benefits offered through cafeteria plans. In addition my bill will expand the types of qualified benefits that can be offered in SIMPLE cafeteria plans and existing cafeteria plans. These modifications will increase the benefits provided for all employees and the likelihood that employees will utilize their cafeteria plans to purchase these benefits. This legislation modifies rules that pertain to employer-provided dependent-care assistance plans. First, it would increase the current $5,000 annual contribution limitation of these plans to $10,000 for employees that claim two or more dependents on their tax return. This increase is significant because it will allow taxpayers to use their cafeteria accounts to pay for the care of their children and their elderly dependent family members. As the current baby-boomer generation continues to age, this scenario will become increasingly more common. The bill also works to address our aging populations' need for long- term care insurance. Here in the United States, nearly half of all seniors age 65 or older will need long-term care at some point in their life. Unfortunately, most seniors have not adequately prepared for this possibility, just as many working age individuals have not given much thought to their eventual long-term care needs. With the cost of a private room in a nursing home averaging more than $72,000 annually, many Americans risk losing their life savings--and jeopardizing their children's inheritance--by failing to properly plan for the long-term care services they will need as they grow older. To address this problem, this bill would allow employees to purchase long-term care insurance coverage through their cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements. Allowing employers to offer long-term care benefits through these accounts would make long-term care insurance more affordable and help Americans prepare for their future long-term care needs. Additionally, by including long-term care insurance as a qualified benefit available for purchase in cafeteria plans employers will be able to include information about long-term care options in their employee benefit packages. This will help increase employee understanding of the need to plan for their care while also increasing their access to long-term care insurance. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, pay more than 45 percent of the private- sector's payroll, and generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. It is critical that small businesses are able to offer their employees cafeteria plans so that they may purchase the health care and other benefits that will provide security for their families. The ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2007'' achieves these objectives, in a manner that employers and employees can afford. Although the use of pre-tax dollars to acquire these benefits reduces current Federal revenues, the opportunity to provide small business employees these same benefits currently enjoyed by the employees of the Federal Government, and larger companies, more than justifies this minimal investment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with you to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his unparalleled leadership, because it is borne of a tremendous credibility based on his military and professional experience on these vital issues, and that precise credibility lends the kind of expertise to the Senate, to the Congress, and to our Nation that is so vital at this point in time. But I think in the final analysis, it is something we have to honor as we consider the most consequential issue of our time. I am very pleased the Senator has offered an amendment that reflects his resolution that was modified and that was supported by both sides of the political aisle. I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, because this is a critical issue. It is one of the issues that is the most significant of our time. As we begin this week, it is regrettable we don't have the Iraq debate before the floor of the Senate in the form of considering a resolution. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is going to proceed. They are going to proceed to debate a resolution in opposition to the troop surge proposed by the President of the United States. They will have that debate this week. The question is when and if the Senate is going to have that debate on a specific resolution, on specific issues, with specific votes. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing today is the shrinking role of the Senate when it comes to the war in Iraq, a war that has been ongoing for 4 years. I am dismayed because I don't see any evidence. I don't see any evidence of working on a bipartisan basis to coalesce around an issue and on a position where it has been demonstrated there is a majority of support in the Senate to have negotiations, to have consultation, to work it out. I don't see any evidence of that. Have we come to the point in the Senate where we haven't been able to determine procedurally how to move forward on a nonbinding resolution? It is hard to believe the Senate would be marginalized on that point. Now I am speaking from experience. This is my 13th year in the Senate--my 13th year. I served in the House of Representatives for 16 years. I served for more than 20 years--I think about 24 years--on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and currently the Intelligence Committee. So I speak from experience. You have to work across the political aisle. And there wasn't a time when we didn't discuss these issues: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Panama before the Persian Gulf. We had Bosnia and Kosovo. We were able to work it out. The fact is I well recall a statement I had drafted back in 2000 illustrating examples of bipartisanship here on the floor of the Senate, one of which I said about the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, in working across the aisle with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, on the issue of Kosovo. That has been the hallmark of the Senate. Does it mean that we disagree on a major issue of our time? No. There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions, whether it is on our position on the troop surge, whether it is on the position of cutting out funding, the troop gaps, a new authorization? Some of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle will have differing views. I came to this debate a few weeks ago when we were getting prepared ostensibly to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably. But I joined with the Senator from Nebraska in his effort across the aisle with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because I wanted to send a message that here and now, there will be those of us on this side of the aisle who disagree with the President on the troop surge. So I wanted to send that message. I read the resolution. I know there are some on this side of the aisle who didn't accept that language. But I thought it was important to do that. I cosponsored that resolution. We had many meetings, as the Senator from Nebraska would note, with Chairman Biden and Chairman Levin, to work through this issue: how we could work with the Senator from Virginia, because we knew we had a majority on both sides of the aisle that could work it out, who were opposed to the troop surge. So how is it we couldn't get from here to there? And we met in good faith to negotiate, working out even the procedures. We agreed: Let's have an open, unfettered, unrestricted debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So we said: Let's work it out, and the good Senator from Virginia worked it out. He incorporated our concerns in his modified resolution so we could enjoin our efforts. Now, it is not surprising on this side of the aisle that there are strong views that support the President, that don't believe we should have a vote. But does that mean to say we can't move forward and the House of Representatives can? So the House of Representatives is going to be debating this issue this week, and the Senate is going to be dithering. While our troops are on the front lines, the Senate is sitting on the sidelines. I am amazed we have reached this point in the Senate. We should be embracing this moment. We are the voice of the American people. Constitutional democracy is predicated on majority rule, but a respect for minority rights. I don't see any ongoing negotiations and discussions. Maybe I missed something. I don't see that happening across the political aisle. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance, that you missed your chance with a vote--2 weeks ago--you mean that is it in the Senate? How did we pass major pieces of legislation, major initiatives without saying: That is it; there is no room for discussion, there is no room for negotiation, there is no room for compromise. Oftentimes I am challenged on this side because I work so much across the political aisle. Senator Hagel did the same thing, as did Senator Warner. We worked across the political aisle to make it work. But I do not see that mutual trust to say: Let's see how we can move forward on the most profound issue of our time. It is unimaginable that we cannot develop a strategy for deliberating on this most consequential issue. We are expecting to adjourn next week for a recess. I thought to myself: Why? Why, so we will get back to Iraq before we know it? That is what we have heard: Just wait. The troop surge isn't going to wait. The Iraqi war doesn't take a recess. Our men and women aren't taking a recess. Why can't we debate now and vote on these issues? Are we saying we are simply not capable of talking? That is what the Senate is all about. It is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate--we missed our chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best policy for this country with respect to Iraq at a time when men and women are on the front lines; at a time when the President is proposing a troop surge which I and others joined with Senator Warner because we oppose that; at a time in which we are almost a year to the anniversary of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra? In fact, Senator Warner and I paid a visit just days after that, the first congressional delegation, and we saw all the manifestations of what exists today in the most pronounced way. And we are saying we can't get it done in the Senate. Is this about scoring political points? I read every day: Who is winning politically? Because that is what it is about. It is about winning politically on a policy with respect to Iraq where we have been mired for 4 years with a strategy that hasn't been working. And we are saying, who is winning politically? Isn't it about Iraq? Isn't it about our men and women? Isn't it about what is in the best interests for this country? We have given so much. Our men and women have sacrificed immeasurably. As Senator Collins indicated, we lost another from Maine this weekend, SGT Eric Ross, 26. These men and women have put themselves on the frontlines. Yet we sit and hesitate to talk about what is in their best interests. Some say it is a nonbinding resolution that has no impact. I daresay, if it doesn't have any impact, then why is it we are not voting? What has a greater resonance in America? Is it silence or is it taking action on the most consequential issue of our time? I can only imagine, if we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote on Senator Warner's resolution--that is bipartisan, I might add--because those Members strove to make it bipartisan in the Senate, many strive to do that, so we can send a message that would be profound, that would resonate. To have a strong vote in the Senate or silence, which would have greater resonance? I think we know the answer to this question. I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much partisanship and too much polarization. What we need now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically, so we have 30-second ads that will be run by outside groups or we are seeing them now. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a political U-turn. We are returning to it. This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, and blue. I am dismayed we are the second month into a new Congress, after the American people resoundingly repudiated the politics of the past, the partisanship and polarization, creating a poisonous environment. They repudiated all of that. Here we are, back to the same old approach. Instead of giving confidence to the American people that we will speak, we are their voice, we give voice to their fears and to their hopes, to their concerns that they rightfully have because we are not making the kind of progress, we are moving in a different direction on Iraq that obviously has been exemplified by the continuing and ongoing sectarian warfare. Fifteen months ago when Senator Warner came to the Senate and offered a resolution, 2006 was going to be the year of transition to Iraqi sovereignty. It was 2006 when we would turn over all the security to the Iraqi security forces. But 2006 has come and gone. We haven't made any measurable progress. As I said, when I was there a year ago, we saw the manifestations of the sectarian warfare, a vacuum had been created politically because no new central government had been created. That took months. We allowed that vacuum to continue. We got a new government. Yet they have been hesitant--indeed, they have been an impediment--to quelling the sectarian violence and confronting and demobilizing the militias. I heard a year ago about the graft and corruption that was running rampant in the ministries, as we saw recently with the Deputy Minister of Health funneling money to support the sectarian violence and the militias. We have seen and we have known all of that. So Senator Warner got that resolution passed. We united around him. In June of 2006, we passed a resolution as well that called for a regional conference so we would begin the diplomatic offensive the Iraq Study Group spoke to. But that has been ignored as well. I know the administration has had a number of strategies in Iraq. They had the national strategy for victory that was also 15 months old, that represented all the issues Senator Warner has embraced in his resolution, to which they only paid lip service, regrettably. So we are here today. We want to give voice to the concerns of the American people who want us to move in a different direction, not to commit additional troops at a time in which we have a government in Iraq that hasn't demonstrated a measurable commitment to controlling the sectarian violence and make the political changes within its Government that demonstrate a good-faith effort--whether it is the oil revenue-sharing distribution money, the provincial elections and, as I said, the demobilization of the militias; in fact, impeding our efforts to capture people who were responsible for some of the genocide and the warfare. But here we are. I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote on the Warner resolution that is so important that a majority of Senators support? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the political aisle.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007. Senator Kerry and I are here today offering this legislation because the issue of global warming is no longer seriously open to skepticism. The preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence is irrefutable and the cost of inaction incalculable. It is no longer a question of science--it is now a question of political will. I believe our bill offers a means by which anyone who is honestly committed to addressing global warming can vote to improve our environmental future while preserving our economy. We call for 65 percent reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for all major sectors of our society, and starting in 2010, we put these called-for emissions reductions on a downward glide path to make the reductions realistic yet aggressive. It takes a forward-looking, comprehensive, science-based approach to tackling this issue without putting a stranglehold on our economy. This is the right course at the right cost. While Congress fiddles, alpine glaciers and polar ice caps millions of years old are melting. Sea levels are rising globally. Manmade carbon dioxide levels and the average global temperature have increased at unprecedented levels over the past century--and are projected to increase up to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Meanwhile, the CO2 we continue to release today while we await meaningful action will remain in the atmosphere for at least a century--with concentrations rising in the coming decades. Just think-- CO2 emissions from Henry Ford's very first car are still in the atmosphere. Clearly, we can't afford to wait any longer. And it's not as though we aren't literally catapulting toward a consensus on at least the existence of the problem. We have a Federal agency, NOAA, reporting that 2006 was the warmest year since regular temperature records began in 1895 and the past nine years have been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. Even though the President announced no new direct climate policy changes, he did state in his most recent State of the Union Address that we must confront the serious challenge of global climate change. Just last week, a coalition of ten major U.S. companies came together to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership--Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, FPL Group, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources all have advocated for a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade system--as our bill provides. Even ExxonMobil, long skeptical on anthropogenic global warming, recently saw its CEO state that ``the risk [of climate change] is so great that it justifies taking action.'' Two years ago, I became co-chair of the International Climate Change Taskforce, comprised of respected scientists, business leaders, and elected officials from eight industrialized and developing nations. The first and significant recommendation we published was to prevent global temperatures from rising above 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century--because science suggests that beyond this temperature increase there is a tipping point--a possible abrupt climate change that would have a catastrophic effect on our ecosystems and our society. This bill would prevent us from reaching that tipping point with a required 65 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050--a figure that is both rigorous and realistic. And it does so by both instituting the successful California emissions standards that have already been embraced by other States--including seven northeastern States like my home State of Maine--and that provide industry with predictability and uniformity . . . and also putting in place a flexible but mandatory carbon ``cap and trade'' system that uses the power of the ``invisible hand'' to reduce emissions more cost- effectively for businesses. And to encourage greater investment in renewable energy, we also call for 20 percent of America's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. But at the same time we provide incentives for advanced technologies so that existing industries can actually make investments into cleaner infrastructure. Moreover, with the U.S. comprising only four percent of the world's population yet emitting 20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide, we think it's time our response to this crisis become proportional to our nation's contribution to the problem. And that's why our bill also urges the U.S. to return to the international negotiating table. Global warming is a comprehensive problem that demands the kind of comprehensive approach our bill provides--with measures to minimize the effects on our communities and our ecosystems that other bills acknowledge are inevitable but do not address. Ours is the only climate bill to be introduced that calls for research to assess the vulnerability of coral reefs to increased CO2 deposits, and of marine organisms throughout the marine food web. Our bill also calls for the creation of a ``vulnerability scorecard'' to provide communities with a yardstick for them to measure the potential impact of climate change and make informed decisions to minimize the impact. In the end, government leaders should make no mistake--the public understands the severity of the risk of inaction on this crucial issue, with half of voters reporting in a recent Zogby poll that concerns about global warming made a difference in who they voted for and 58 percent said that combating global warming should be a high priority. So the truth is that elected officials ignore the public's concerns with global warming at their own peril--just as we ignore the danger to the detriment of our children and future generations. The opportunity to stop, and ultimately reverse, global climate change is not open-ended. The clock is ticking . . . and the cost of inaction continues to escalate. We recognize the major cause of global warming and we understand what a solution requires. Now we are compelled to muster the political will to make it happen--and the Kerry-Snowe bill provides a reasonable yet vigorous path to follow. Thank you.