Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about bipartisan legislation I am introducing today, the Cut Energy Bills at Home Act, which would provide a 30 percent tax credit for Americans to cut their energy bills, and catalyze our construction industry, reduce pollution, and seize the opportunity in residential energy efficiency to secure America's energy future. With heating oil prices at $3.94 nationally for home heating oil, a record for this time of year, this legislation is a timely method to address what may be the most expensive heating season in history. I am pleased to have developed this bill with Senators Bingaman and Feinstein, two longtime leaders on energy efficiency, and look forward to discussing this bill with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee. The Cut Energy Bills at Home Act recognizes the sea-change that has occurred in the energy efficiency industry and tries to ensure that middle-class Americans can harness these technological strides in their own lives. Specifically, not only have windows, insulation, and boilers become more advanced to reduce energy consumption, but our contractors who perform this work have developed sophisticated practices to holistically improve a home's energy consumption. In the past, homeowners would simply place insulation in the attic to contain heat, now companies are using infared thermography to identify temperature differences in a house, a blower door test to measure airflow leaks, to replace windows, doors, and insulation that will maximize the cost-effectiveness of home energy efficiency improvements. Today, we are on the cusp of a milestone turn in the energy efficiency industry--one with benefits for homeowners unimaginable even just five years ago. To spur early adoption of these advances and to ensure that cost is not prohibitive, our bill provides a 30 percent tax credit up to $5,000 to assist homeowners who make an investment that will reduce energy costs for not only this winter, but for future years to come. For example, under this bill if a homeowner invests in energy efficiency that will reduce heating oil consumption from 1,000 gallons of home heating oil to 800 gallons, a 20 percent improvement, the individual may claim 30 percent of the cost of the improvements as a tax credit up to $2,000. In 2009, New England consumed 3.4 billion gallons of home heating oil, which is approximately $13 billion that households spent simply to keep warm. A 20 percent reduction in this figure would yield a savings of $2.6 billion for households in New England. Energy efficiency can provide a critical tool to reduce this amount and allow households to invest in food, medicine, and the American economy. I urge my colleagues to support me in passing this legislation into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, November marks National Family Caregiver Month, a chance to thank those who provide care for our loved ones in their time of need. According to the most recent census data, my home State of Maine has the oldest population in the United States, and therefore I am acutely aware of the tremendous role wonderful, compassionate individuals play as caregivers. Today I rise to commend and recognize Care & Comfort, a small business that successfully helps to fill the need for high-quality health care professionals in Maine. Care & Comfort, headquartered in the central Maine city of Waterville, specializes in care for elderly and special needs individuals. Within their home health division, Care & Comfort provides nursing services, caring companions, in-home care, and long-term care. Throughout various other divisions, the company offers outpatient therapy, behavioral health and community support services, children's case management service, home and community support services for children, adult community support, and home modifications. As a company which strives ``to provide the best possible care to clients and families across Maine,'' Care & Comfort not only helps its clients through its high quality customer service, it also serves as a community resource on health care for the entire Maine community. In 1991, Susan Giguere started Care & Comfort with just two employees after realizing the lack of home health solutions in Maine following her mother's illness. In order to expand her business, Susan applied for and received guaranteed loans from the Small Business Administration, SBA. The first loan Susan obtained was for $100,000 in 1996, and the second for just over $330,000 in 2000. These loans allowed her company to grow from two employees to 475 staff members. As a result, this August Care & Comfort was named to the SBA 100 list, which features 100 small businesses that have created at least 100 jobs since receiving SBA assistance. This honor is richly deserved, as the company has vividly demonstrated the tenacity and strength found in so many of our Nation's small businesses in these challenging economic times. Care & Comfort now helps 890 home health and 748 mental health clients out of five regional offices located across the State. Furthermore, this small business goes above and beyond the call of duty to routinely give back to the community through volunteer efforts and charitable donations. Their hard work, along with exceptional staff, has led to several accolades for the company including awards from the SBA, two Fleet Bank Awards for Community Service, and an award from Kennebec Valley Community College. Care & Comfort has assisted many families through difficult times. Therefore, it is only fitting that we celebrate this firm's successes, as they have simultaneously helped support our loved ones and created numerous jobs throughout Maine. I am proud to extend my congratulations to Susan Giguere and everyone at Care & Comfort for their tremendous efforts and offer my best wishes for continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I extend my most heartfelt congratulations to the Bangor High School Girls Soccer Team, which on November 5, 2011, clinched the programs first-ever Maine Class A State Championship, and in doing so achieved the remarkable feat of a perfect season! I applaud Coach Johnson and each and every member of the team on their milestone accomplishment! Indeed, the story of the Bangor Girls Soccer Team is truly inspiring, characterized by an extraordinary strength of character and conviction that could not be more emblematic of our great State of Maine. The team embarked upon this season imbued with the distinct recollection of its heartbreaking loss in last years championship match, but under the steadfast leadership of 12 seniors who have been lifelong friends and teammates, the team admirably transformed that defeat into an indefatigable drive to seize the gold ball. From that point forward, the team demonstrated an awe-inspiring, unmatched fortitude and tenacity that propelled them to victory after victory. As senior Liz Hintz stated in a Bangor Daily News article, We took every game seriously. We knew we couldnt afford to let down for even ten minutes because we knew it could cost us. That undeterred, laser beam focus was reflected in their statistics as well. In the regular season alone, the team incredibly outscored their opponents 98- 8, and in the postseason, an even more impressive 18-0. The teams unwavering motivation led them all the way to their second consecutive championship game where, in a rematch of the previous years title contest, they again confronted the reigning champion. Undaunted, the team played with the unflagging passion and willpower that had become its hallmark characteristic, working tirelessly on both offense and defense and never relenting to a challenge. That irreversible tide of momentum as the opposing coach called it carried Bangor to a convincing 4-0 victory and its first Class A Championship. The legendary Mia Hamm once astutely observed, The backbone of success is usually found in old-fashioned, basic concepts like hard work, determination, good planning and perseverance. If any team epitomizes that belief, its the Bangor Girls Soccer Team, which overcame the heart-wrenching loss of last year to become the best team in Class A soccer this year. Again, I congratulate and commend the Bangor High School Girls Soccer Team on their well-deserved victory as well as their extraordinary efforts. What a wonderful success story they are for Bangor and our great State of Maine!

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for provisions contained within the amendment offered by Senator Tester, as they will make critical strides in addressing the reality that far too many of our Nation's veterans are finding it difficult--if not impossible--to find work in the civilian job market after they leave military service. Senator Tester's amendment is illustrative of how our Nation's government should work, as it contains ideas from both bodies of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and the executive branch. Over the past year, I have been particularly pleased to support many of the concepts contained within this amendment in other forms. I joined Senator Patty Murray, chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, in June by cosponsoring the Hiring Heroes Act, which is the source of a great number of the sections of this amendment. I am also gratified to see that this amendment contains the President's September proposal to offer tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed and disabled veterans. As I said then, providing tax incentives for these hires is an excellent means of fostering job creation--in this case, it has the added benefit of helping to address veteran unemployment rates. Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta held a roundtable on veteran unemployment in which he noted that today's newest veterans--the men and women who have risked their health and their very lives by serving in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world--are ``the next greatest generation''' which have ``dedicated themselves to serving this country.'' On this point, Secretary Panetta could not be more correct. As a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have had no higher privilege than witnessing firsthand our exceptional servicemen and women on the frontlines in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their steadfast courage, leadership, and dedication ensures that our armed forces are second to none and the finest on the planet. Yet despite their extraordinary commitment to this Nation, unparalleled technical and practical skills, and remarkable capabilities demonstrated under the most difficult conditions possible, too many of our Nation's veterans remain unemployed today. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' October 2011 report, post-9/11 veterans have had a particularly challenging time finding employment, with more than 12 percent of them currently unemployed. Not only is this number far too high, but it greatly exceeds the nation's unemployment level for nonveterans. Our youngest veterans--those between ages 18 and 24--are experiencing even greater difficulty finding jobs, with unemployment rates exceeding 20 percent. For our veterans--and our Nation--such statistics are nothing less than a travesty. And that is why I so strongly support the efforts of this Chamber to lend a well-deserved helping hand to our veterans in their efforts to find employment. Indeed, when it comes to securing a job, is there any question that we all should be fighting for those who have so nobly fought for America? The amendment before the Senate today is a crucial effort to do so. Some of its provisions will ensure that our servicemembers receive assistance in preparing for their transition to life as a civilian, looking for a job, and identifying good career options. Other provisions will establish a pioneering effort to identify equivalencies between the skills our servicemen and women develop in the military and the qualifications required for civilian employment. Still other sections will extend the opportunity for servicemembers and veterans to receive supplemental rehabilitation and vocational benefits, providing them additional time to prepare for the job market. Efforts such as these are imperative in order to allow our veterans to prepare to be competitive in today's job market. Other items in this amendment, such as tax credits of up to $9,600 for each unemployed or disabled veteran hired by a business, offer further help by encouraging companies to give our veterans the chance they deserve to work. As Secretary Panetta said at the recent roundtable, ``the best thing we could do to honor those that have served is to make sure that when they come back, they have some opportunity to be able to become a part of our society and not just wind up on the unemployment rolls.'' Striving to increase those opportunities is the absolute least we should do. In that light, I strongly believe we should take all reasonable steps possible to provide our servicemembers and veterans with the training they need to make the transition into the civilian workforce. We should also do all we can to encourage companies to hire veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. For these reasons, I am very pleased to see the Senate considering the Tester amendment today. At the same time, it is my practice to vote ``present'' on legislation which contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of my spouse. As such, and in consultation with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, I voted ``present'' in this particular instance, despite my overwhelming support for the vast majority of this amendment. Mr. President, over the past year, I have been pleased to support many of the concepts contained in H.R. 674, as amended and passed by the Senate today. This June, I joined Senator Patty Murray, chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, by cosponsoring the Hiring Heroes Act, which is the source of a great number of provisions in this bill intended to address the high unemployment rate of our Nation's veterans. This bill also now contains the President's proposal to offer tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed and disabled veterans--I have supported this proposal since the President announced it in September, and I continue to believe that providing tax incentives to businesses for hiring veterans is an excellent means of fostering job creation while helping to address veteran unemployment rates. And of course, I could not be more pleased to have helped to author the repeal of the 3 percent withholding provision that is at the heart of H.R. 674. This provision will greatly aid small businesses that are hard-hit by current law requirements that withhold a portion of payments to contractors until they pay taxes on the earnings. By repealing this mandate, which threatens to overburden business owners and taxpayers alike, and stifle the economy at a time when we cannot afford any unnecessary obstacles in the road to recovery, H.R. 674 will help businesses, their owners, and their employees all over our Nation. For these reasons, I was gratified to see the Senate pass H.R. 674 today. However, it is my practice to vote ``present'' on legislation which contains the potential or appearance of association with the private business activity of my spouse. As such, and in consultation with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, I voted ``present'' in this particular instance, despite my overwhelming support for the vast majority of this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, earlier this year members of the Maine Legislature proposed a bill to name the whoopie pie the official State dessert of Maine, later settling on naming it the ``State treat of Maine.'' The whoopie pie, a baked good normally consisting of two chocolate cakes with creamy frosting in between, has been a New England tradition for nearly a century. Anyone who has tasted a whoopie pie knows exactly how special and delectable one really is. With Maine's official ``treat'' in mind, today I recognize and commend Isamax Snacks, a small business in Maine that has perfected the art of homemade whoopie pies. Amy Bouchard always loved baking, and in 1994, she started a small business making whoopie pies, out of her home kitchen in the small town of Gardiner. Amy's whoopie pies were famous among her friends as ``wicked,'' and therefore she thought it was only proper to name them ``Wicked Whoopies.'' As any Mainer knows, ``wicked'' is a synonym for ``great'' and is commonly used to refer to any extraordinary item, which Amy's desserts most certainly are. Originally, Isamax was started as a way to supplement her husband's income to assist in raising their two young children, Isabella and Maxx, from which the name of her company is derived. But as more people discovered her Wicked Whoopies, Amy's business grew rapidly and the small kitchen could no longer keep up with the demand. In 1996, Amy moved to a commercial bakery and purchased two distribution trucks. These investments tripled her business size and distribution territory. Amy now also has two stores in Farmingdale and Freeport, where she sells her mouth-watering treats. Today, Amy's small company sells 24 different varieties of whoopie pies, including many seasonal favorites like pumpkin and peppermint, and produces nearly one million Wicked Whoopies each year! Amy also recently added the decadent and innovative ``Whoop-de-Doo'' to her line up; a smaller version of a classic Wicked Whoopie dipped in chocolate. Her business has received countless reviews and awards for its products, and has been featured on several nationally televised shows, such as ``The Oprah Winfrey Show'' in 2003, ``Good Morning America'' in 2005, and Food Network's ``Unwrapped'' in 2007. Wicked Whoopies have also been promoted in the New York Times, the Associated Press, and are even available for purchase on the Home Shopping Network's Web site for the 2011 holiday season. Additionally, the city of Gardiner Board of Trade awarded Isamax Snacks with its President's Award in 2004 and Interface Tech News awarded Wicked Whoopies ``Maine's Best of the Web'' in the e-commerce category in 2005. Over the last 15 years, Isamax Snacks has established itself as one of the country's premier and most heralded whoopie pie and dessert companies. This national notoriety is richly deserved as Amy Bouchard's small dream to help her family blossomed into a vibrant small business. I am proud to congratulate Amy and everyone at Isamax Snacks on their outstanding work, and wish them continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the pending legislation on a critical issue that addresses the burdensome cost of compliance with the Tax Code. H.R. 674 is modeled after bipartisan legislation Senator Brown and I introduced earlier this year to repeal the 3 percent withholding on government contractors that was enacted in 2005. I thank Senator Brown for his steadfast and persistent leadership on this issue as well as Senators Ayotte, Barrasso, Blunt, Burr, Chambliss, Inhofe, Johanns, Boozman, and Risch who are also cosponsors of the legislation. The 3 percent withholding provision mandates that Federal, State, and local governments withhold 3 percent of their payments to private contractors, including Medicare provider payments, farm payments, defense contracts and certain grants. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, ``the 3 percent withholding provision puts both an administrative burden on all parties involved and a strain on the daily operating cash flow of the businesses entering into these contracts.'' This provision would deduct 3 percent from those payments and send the cash to the IRS for what can be considered a downpayment on taxes. The following year, absent any outstanding tax liability, the contractors, or doctors in the case of Medicare, would then get the payment rebated to them. This forces legitimate small businesses who pay their taxes in a timely manner to loan the government 3 percent of a total contract. The American Medical Association supports repealing the 3 percent withholding because it is an additional tax on physicians who already are facing a 29.5 percent cut in Medicare payments on January 1 of next year. According to the AMA Physician Practice Information Survey, 78 percent of office-based physicians in the United States are in practices of nine physicians and under, with the majority of those physicians being in either solo practice or in practices of between two and four physicians. Withholding 3 percent of Medicare payments for services furnished by physician practices will create a difficult cash flow problem for physician practices as small businesses. This is another example of good intentions having unintended consequences and originated as a result of very legitimate efforts to address the tax gap--the difference between what is owed in taxes and the amount that the IRS is able to collect. At first glance, it may seem reasonable to withhold a portion of payments to contractors, until they pay taxes on the earnings. However, the problem with this approach is that it assumes that contractors will not pay their taxes and, regrettably, small businesses suffer as a result of this faulty assumption. Because this mandate withholds 3 percent of payments to contractors, it is a serious problem for small businesses for whom such a withholding from cash-flow would make bidding on contracts cost prohibitive. As such, this mandate threatens to stifle the economy at a time when we cannot afford any unnecessary obstacles in the road to recovery. Everyone agrees that Americans should pay their taxes in full and none of us supports tax cheats, yet there are already extensive penalties including monetary and even criminal for tax delinquency. The unfortunate fact is that the 3 percent withholding provision will cost far more to implement than will be collected in tax revenue. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I remain committed to exploring alternative means to ensure government contractors are indeed paying their taxes in full while working to mitigate the costs of compliance. On November 1, the Senate passed the Agriculture appropriations bill which included a provision prohibiting agencies from awarding contracts to companies with unpaid Federal taxes. Additionally, that legislation barred any contract over $5 million from being awarded if a company cannot certify it has paid its taxes in the last 3 years. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has criticized this provision as having ``unintended consequences'' and that the bill as written would hurt contracting decisions. I believe the legislation should have gone even further and forced all contractors to certify that their taxes are up to date. The bottom line is the Federal Government should not be contracting with those who fail to meet their tax obligations and it is imperative this administration develop a coordinated process to not only punish fraudulent contractors but ensure tax compliance before contracts are awarded. That said, our country is in no place to stifle already anemic economic recovery and disappointing job growth numbers that have plagued the Nation for 3 years now. According to data released Friday by Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate remains persistently high at 9 percent. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the six decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We need to offer the American people solutions that help grow jobs, not provisions that prevent it. Compliance with this law will impose billions of dollars of cost on both the public and private sectors, with a disproportionate impact on small businesses. These compliance costs will far exceed projected tax collections. For instance, just one Federal agency, the Department of Defense, estimated that it would cost over $17 billion in the first 5 years to comply, and the revenue estimate in 2005 projected that only $6.977 billion would be collected over a 10 year window. Even if that DOD estimate is inflated, as some charge, the Congressional Budget Office projects costs of $12 billion just to implement this provision at the Federal level. There are similar costs imposed across all of the Nation's State and local governments, making this provision simply an unfunded mandate on State and local governments. This is a case of spending a dollar to collect a dime, which is counterproductive for addressing the Nation's deficits. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I have heard from many businesses across the country that the 3 percent withholding amount will exceed their profit on a given contract and will prevent them from being able to make payroll, forcing them to borrow from banks just to pay their employees. This is not the way to encourage jobs and business growth but rather the way to stifle it. This 3 percent withholding provision would increase the tax and regulatory burdens on our businesses--precisely the wrong policy potion for these troubled times. Given the record deficits and budgetary crisis in this country, it is imperative that the Congress find funds to offset the repeal provision. The President and the House of Representatives both agreed that a proper way to pay for repeal would be to retract a poorly drafted provision from the new health care law--a provision that would have added people who do not meet the income requirements on to the already- strained Medicaid Program which provides health care to the indigent. As a strong supporter of Medicaid, I know it is important to keep the program narrowly targeted at those populations most in need, and if doing so in this case allows us to repeal the damaging 3 percent withholding rule, then so much the better. At a time when the American people are extremely frustrated with the partisan gridlock and Congress' inability to pass meaningful legislation, this bipartisan bill would provide small businesses with much needed certainty and relief. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011, targeted tax relief legislation to extend, for one year, the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. When the Small Business Jobs Act was crafted, I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus and then Ranking Member Grassley to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. I sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation. As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6 percent. For 27 out of the past 32 months the unemployment rate has been at 9 percent or above. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives. That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform and in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than 2 years ago. The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion, or 1 percent of GDP, just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there has been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986. Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly handcuffing our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. While this administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations. While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011 is a critical example. This legislation contains provisions I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness. The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending for another year deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self-employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive. In the coming year we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended for another year. This legislation will also extend for 1 year a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities. The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the AMT. When Congress implements policies through the tax code, it is with intent that businesses will utilize such incentives to do what they do best--grow their operations which in turns leads to hiring additional employees. Unfortunately during a downward business cycle that we have been experiencing for more than two years, businesses do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. It is rather simple: if you do not have enough revenue to claim a credit, that credit is of little use to you. An incredible benefit of the carryback and the use of general business credits against the AMT is to make the small business health insurance tax credits enacted earlier this year more effective and make health insurance more affordable for business owners to offer to their employees. This bill would also extend for 1 year the availability of the so- called section 179 expensing to give businesses the option of writing off the cost of qualifying capital expenses in the year of acquisition instead of recovering these costs over time through depreciation, and allow businesses to take advantage of higher limits for the so-called section 179 expensing. Under this provision, up to $250,000 can be expensed for real property and up to $250,000 for equipment, or up to the full $500,000 for just equipment. Expanding Section 179 expensing has been a significant Small Business Committee bipartisan priority of mine, and former Small Business Committee Chair Kerry and current Chair Landrieu, as reflected in no fewer than three separate bills in the previous Congress: the Small Business Stimulus Act of 2009, S. 156, Snowe-Kerry-Landrieu; the Small business Expensing Permanency Act of 2009, S. 2822, Snowe-Landrieu; and the Small Business Job Creation Act of 2010, S. 3103, Snowe. I want my colleagues to understand that this provision is expected to confer a major economic boost because it certainly speeds up the recovery time on these investments. Extending this provision will help the businesses modernize while aiding construction firms and their employees. Additionally, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided for a temporary reduction in the recognition period for S corporation built- in gains tax. When businesses move from being a corporation with two levels of tax to an S corporation, they have generally been required to hold their ``retained earnings'' for up to 10 years. This prevents owners from taking the retained earnings as distributions where only income taxes are owed rather than both corporate income tax at one level and then personal income tax at the second. Recent law changes have shortened this holding period to 7 years, but that is still too long. By infusing capital, of their own retained earnings, this provision in the Small Business Jobs Act enabled companies to reduce the holding period from 7 years to 5 years so that companies that made the conversion before 2006 can redeploy this capital for use in their business. Extending this provision also underscores how vital retained earnings are for small businesses. A final provision would extend for one year a complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small business stock held for 5 years. Extending this measure will help further critical investment in our Nation's small businesses. This is a longstanding priority of mine and of Senator John Kerry, former Chair of the Small Business Committee and my fellow colleague on the Finance Committee. The Kerry-Snowe Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 included this exclusion, which we fought to incorporate into the Small Business Jobs Act. It is essential that we pass these small business tax extensions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed tax relief. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011, targeted tax relief legislation to extend, for one year, the essential tax relief provisions that were included in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. When the Small Business Jobs Act was crafted, I worked closely with Finance Committee Chair Baucus and then Ranking Member Grassley to ensure the critical small business tax provisions that reflected our shared priorities were included in that legislation. I sincerely appreciate all of their hard work on that legislation. As the former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the urgent imperative of job creation in our country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6 percent. For 27 out of the past 32 months the unemployment rate has been at 9 percent or above. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months--a level previously unseen in the 6 decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping began in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We must help create an environment that is conducive to small businesses' job creation. One critical way to do so is through targeted small business tax incentives. That is why as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been urging this administration to champion tax reform and in fact, I led a panel on the issue as part of the Economic Summit at the White House more than 2 years ago. The individual income tax form has more than tripled in length from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 pages for 2009. American taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and shell out $140 billion, or 1 percent of GDP, just struggling to comply with tax filing requirements. This is not surprising as there has been 15,000 changes to the tax code since the last overhaul in 1986. Alarmingly, the tax code is also needlessly handcuffing our ability to compete in today's integrated global economy, as we strain under the second highest corporate tax burden in the industrialized world. While this administration and the Senate majority are pondering whether we should reform our tax code, small businesses continued to struggle with the current tax regime at the expense of creating more jobs and growing operations. While I continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform, there are certain measures that, although not a silver bullet, should be passed right away to help improve the economic environment for small businesses. The Small Business Tax Extenders Act of 2011 is a critical example. This legislation contains provisions I have championed for years to provide small businesses greater cash flow, incentivizing their investments, and increasing tax fairness. The lifeblood of a small business is its cash flow and this bill contains several provisions to improve it. One of these provisions will address a fundamental injustice of the tax code by extending for another year deduction for health insurance premiums against not only income taxes but also against payroll taxes. At a rate of 15.3 percent, the self-employment, or SECA, tax is imposed on the health benefits of business owners. This is a costly injustice that makes health insurance just that much more expensive at a time when insurance costs are already prohibitively expensive. In the coming year we will certainly see health premiums rise, making it all the more onerous on small businesses to provide critical benefits to their employees. Allowing the full deduction for health insurance is critical for its affordability. I was thrilled that we were able to address this injustice in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and I sincerely hope that this provision can be extended for another year. This legislation will also extend for 1 year a provision permitting general business credits to be carried back 5 years and taken against the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. Before the enactment of the Small Business Jobs Act, a business's unused general business credit could be carried back to offset taxes paid in the previous year, and the remaining amount could be carried forward for 20 years to offset future tax liabilities. The 5-year carryback of credits will allow business owners to reach back to prior years when they had taxable income to offset prior tax liability with these credits and get immediate cash infusion. Business owners can use this cash as they choose, but as we have seen with net operating loss relief, they use these funds for anything from meeting payroll to investing in new equipment. The same principle applies with respect to the provision that allows credits to be used against the AMT. When Congress implements policies through the tax code, it is with intent that businesses will utilize such incentives to do what they do best--grow their operations which in turns leads to hiring additional employees. Unfortunately during a downward business cycle that we have been experiencing for more than two years, businesses do not have income tax liability that can be offset with a credit. It is rather simple: if you do not have enough revenue to claim a credit, that credit is of little use to you. An incredible benefit of the carryback and the use of general business credits against the AMT is to make the small business health insurance tax credits enacted earlier this year more effective and make health insurance more affordable for business owners to offer to their employees. This bill would also extend for 1 year the availability of the so- called section 179 expensing to give businesses the option of writing off the cost of qualifying capital expenses in the year of acquisition instead of recovering these costs over time through depreciation, and allow businesses to take advantage of higher limits for the so-called section 179 expensing. Under this provision, up to $250,000 can be expensed for real property and up to $250,000 for equipment, or up to the full $500,000 for just equipment. Expanding Section 179 expensing has been a significant Small Business Committee bipartisan priority of mine, and former Small Business Committee Chair Kerry and current Chair Landrieu, as reflected in no fewer than three separate bills in the previous Congress: the Small Business Stimulus Act of 2009, S. 156, Snowe-Kerry-Landrieu; the Small business Expensing Permanency Act of 2009, S. 2822, Snowe-Landrieu; and the Small Business Job Creation Act of 2010, S. 3103, Snowe. I want my colleagues to understand that this provision is expected to confer a major economic boost because it certainly speeds up the recovery time on these investments. Extending this provision will help the businesses modernize while aiding construction firms and their employees. Additionally, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided for a temporary reduction in the recognition period for S corporation built- in gains tax. When businesses move from being a corporation with two levels of tax to an S corporation, they have generally been required to hold their ``retained earnings'' for up to 10 years. This prevents owners from taking the retained earnings as distributions where only income taxes are owed rather than both corporate income tax at one level and then personal income tax at the second. Recent law changes have shortened this holding period to 7 years, but that is still too long. By infusing capital, of their own retained earnings, this provision in the Small Business Jobs Act enabled companies to reduce the holding period from 7 years to 5 years so that companies that made the conversion before 2006 can redeploy this capital for use in their business. Extending this provision also underscores how vital retained earnings are for small businesses. A final provision would extend for one year a complete exclusion on capital gains attributable to small business stock held for 5 years. Extending this measure will help further critical investment in our Nation's small businesses. This is a longstanding priority of mine and of Senator John Kerry, former Chair of the Small Business Committee and my fellow colleague on the Finance Committee. The Kerry-Snowe Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 included this exclusion, which we fought to incorporate into the Small Business Jobs Act. It is essential that we pass these small business tax extensions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed tax relief. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of America's economy. These small firms, which number over 27 million, endeavor to create jobs and bring a sense of fiscal security into their local communities. That alone is commendable, but what is truly rare among small businesses is the one that seeks to promote their home State's vast historical and cultural heritage, igniting a sense of deep pride in the community and sharing this pride with others. With this rare quality in mind, today I recognize and commend Islandport Press, an independent book publisher, located in the coastal Maine town of Yarmouth. Eleven years ago, Dean Lunt had a dream of publishing books which detail the historical and cultural riches of Maine and New England. Growing up in Maine, Dean's grandmother encouraged him to write and share, with the rest of the world, the history of their own Long Island, a small island located off the coast of Maine. This inspired Mr. Lunt to write and publish Islandport Press's first book ``Hauling by Hand: The Life and Times of a Maine Island.'' This first book sold 3,000 copies, and inspired Mr. Lunt to continue publishing several books, always with an eye on increasing awareness about this historic region of our country. In its efforts to continually develop and grow, Islandport Press has expanded into the ever vast literary world, publishing several categories of books that reflect the vast diversity of New England's people and places, and has simultaneously established itself as an award-winning publisher for children's books. In 2010, Islandport Press was honored with its first Moonbeam Children's Book Award, receiving the gold medal award in the category of Picture Book, All Ages, for ``The Fish House Door'' by Robert F. Baldwin and illustrated by Astrid Sheckels. Moonbeam Children's Book Awards honor exemplary children books with the goal of increasing childhood literacy and inspiring life-long reading. There are 38 award categories, ranging from Pictures Books, to Pre-Teen Fiction, to Best Book By A Young Author. This year, Islandport Press was again honored with three books receiving awards. ``Mercy'' by Sarah Thompson was awarded the silver medal for Young Adult Fiction-Horror/Mystery; ``Farmyard Alphabet'' by Dahlov Ipcar was awarded the bronze medal for Best Board Book; and ``My Cat, Coon Cat'' by Sandy Fuller and Jeannie Brett, was awarded a silver medal in Best Picture Book for Ages 4-8. While these awards are certainly remarkable accomplishments for the individual authors and illustrators, they are also a testament to the keen eye that Dean has for promising and talented authors who offer substantive new literature. Islandport Press is uniquely dedicated to promoting Maine and New England as part of its mission. Each Moonbeam award is a well-deserved reminder of the hard work and tireless effort of a dream that Dean Lunt had, to share his piece of Maine with the world. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at Islandport Press for their dedication to excellence, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, please allow me to join with family, friends, and colleagues in extending my heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Vivian Pinn on her retirement as Director of the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health after two decades of exceptional service for women in our Nation. First and foremost, let me say it has not only been a privilege to work with her over the years to advance women's health policy, but to call her my friend as well. In fact, just this past February, Vivian was in my office where I had the extraordinary honor of receiving the prestigious Women's Health Research Visionary Award. As one of two recipients this year the other being my good friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, one of the Senate's greatest advocates and indeed voices for women, I can tell you this is an accolade I will cherish forever. And that it was presented to me by such a remarkable woman made the occasion all the more poignant and special. Indeed, Vivian is as phenomenal as she is inspirational--and her monumental legacy at the National Institutes of Health and across the country will reverberate for generations. Nearly 20 years after she first took the helm of the Office of Research on Women's Health and a career later, it is incredible to see how far we have come due in no small part to her indelible efforts as a legendary and tireless advocate. Simply put, Vivian paved the way in America for women's health research and continues to be an unrivaled force for the greater good. In addition to her many accomplishments at the Office of Research on Women's Health, her numerous awards and honors--including her induction as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994, the Elizabeth Blackwell award from the American Medical Women's Association, and her election to the Institute of Medicine in 1995, just to name a few--are truly indicative of her selfless and boundless commitment. And we couldn't be more grateful. The timeline of America's consciousness about women's health fittingly parallels Vivian's unmatched trajectory of public service in medicine. In 1990--with Vivian's help and my strong support in close bipartisan, bicameral collaboration with Representative Pat Schroeder-- with whom I cochaired the Congress--Caucus for Women's Issues, Representative Connie Morella who succeeded me as co-chair, Senator Barbara Mikulski--our vital compatriot in the Senate, as well as dedicated patient advocates across the country, the groundbreaking Office of Research on Women's Health was established at the National Institutes of Health, with Vivian as the first full-time director in 1991. Throughout her tenure, she worked endlessly to ensure that women's health became a priority at the National Institutes of Health, and have helped increase the number of women in leadership roles in research and academic institutions. Working with Vivian, our allies in Congress, leaders at the National Institutes of Health like Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former director who sadly passed away in August, as well as many other stakeholders nationwide, we secured more funding and greater attention to breast cancer, osteoporosis, ovarian and cervical cancer research through groundbreaking programs like the Women's Health Initiative. Vivian, you are a trailblazer, a pioneer, a visionary, and frankly, an icon of medicine. You saw what others could not see and led where others would not act, and for that we are forever in your debt. You have my very best wishes and my profound gratitude for all you have achieved for women and the Nation. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts as Vivian embarks on this next chapter in her life.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Republican leader's legislation on a critical issue that addresses the burdensome cost of compliance with the Tax Code. Senator McConnell's bill is modeled after bipartisan legislation Senator Brown and I introduced earlier this year which would repeal the 3 percent withholding on government contractors that was enacted in 2005 and which mandates that Federal, State, and local governments withhold 3 percent of their payments to private contractors, including Medicare provider payments, farm payments, defense contracts and certain grants. I am deeply disappointed by the fact that the bill received 57 votes on the floor on October 20 but failed to pass the 60-vote threshold. The onerous withholding mandate on government contracts therefore remains before us and must be repealed. The House of Representatives has spoken quite clearly by passing repeal legislation last week by a vote of 405-16 and it is time for the Senate to do the same! This issue originated as a result of very legitimate efforts to address the tax gap--the difference between what is owed in taxes and the amount that the IRS is able to collect. I believe everyone agrees that Americans should pay their taxes in full and none of us supports tax cheats, yet the issue that Senator McConnell's legislation addresses arises from the means of mandating compliance with the Tax Code, the cost of that compliance compared to the revenue collected, and impact on hiring. The unfortunate fact is that the 3 percent withholding provision will cost far more to implement than will be collected in tax revenue. More importantly, our economy will suffer as this provision would take a significant toll on jobs and growth. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6 percent. For 27 out of the past 32 months the unemployment rate has been at 9 percent or above. About 45 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for at least 6 months-- a level previously unseen in the six decades since World War II. At a time when 14 million Americans are still unemployed, and have been so for the longest period since record keeping begun in 1948, our government should be taking every possible step to ease the burden on job creators. We need to offer the American people solutions that help to grow jobs, not provisions that prevent it! Compliance with this law will impose billions of dollars of cost on both the public and private sectors, with a disproportionate impact on small businesses. These compliance costs will far exceed projected tax collections. For instance, just one Federal agency, the Department of Defense, estimated that it would cost over $17 billion in the first 5 years to comply, and the revenue estimate in 2005 projected that only $6.977 billion would be collected over a 10-year window. Even if that DOD estimate is inflated, as some charge, the Congressional Budget Office projects costs of $12 billion just to implement this provision at the Federal level. There are similar costs imposed across all of the Nation's State and local governments, making this provision simply an unfunded mandate on State and local governments. This is a case of spending a dollar to collect a dime, which is counterproductive for addressing the Nation's deficits. What is worse is that this provision is not going to impact only those who have skirted tax laws--this provision will fall most heavily on innocent parties who have done nothing wrong at all, jeopardizing their cash flow and ability to grow. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I have heard from many businesses across the country that the 3 percent withholding amount will exceed their profit on a given contract and will prevent them from being able to make payroll, forcing them to borrow from banks just to pay their employees. This is not the way to encourage jobs and business growth but rather way to stifle it. This 3 percent withholding provision would increase the tax and regulatory burdens on our businesses, precisely the wrong policy potion for these troubled times. We have the opportunity now to repeal this provision and we need to take that step to help the jobs picture. It is vital to note that it is not just workers who would suffer under this provision but Medicare recipients as well. Maine has the oldest population in the Nation and I know all too well how fragile are the finances of our seniors who depend on this vital program. This provision would deduct 3 percent from payments to Medicare providers and instead send the cash to the IRS. Why would we want to give these precious dollars to the tax man rather than doctors? This new problem would give doctors one more reason to turn away Medicare patients. And that is to say nothing of the cost to CMS of setting up the accounting systems that would implement this withholding scheme. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, Congress delayed for 1 year the implementation of this mandate in recognition of the exorbitant expenditures that will be necessary to implement accounting systems and hire new compliance employees at a time when the those resources were desperately needed for productive uses. The IRS itself recently recognized the enormous burdens that this provision will put on government agencies and as a result issued an administrative delay, meaning the 3 percent withholding provision now becomes effective after 2012. And even the President, in his recent Jobs Act proposal, called for further delay of any implementation of this provision. If the Congress, the IRS, and this administration all recognize that the costs of this provision outweigh the benefits, then it is time to act to repeal it. As a result of the IRS regulatory delay, this provision goes into effect at the end of 2012, but people and businesses already are expending valuable resources in anticipation of having to comply with this pernicious provision. At a time when the American people are extremely frustrated with the partisan gridlock and Congress inability to pass meaningful legislation, we had an opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill that would provide small businesses with much needed certainty and relief. The Senate failed to grasp that opportunity on October 20 but we cannot stop fighting to defend small businesses from its implementation. We must act soon, and we must act completely, to end the three percent withholding provision entirely. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to support Senator Vitter's amendment regarding drug importation from Canada. Senator Vitter has been a tremendous partner and tireless advocate in supporting the comprehensive drug importation legislation Senator Stabenow and I introduced earlier this year--the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act--which now has 20 additional cosponsors. The time for enactment of comprehensive drug importation legislation is certainly long overdue--and the critical necessity for this legislation is actually greater . . . not less, particularly for those struggling in this economic environment. Over the past decade, among working age adults--only those with Medicare coverage saw any improvement in their ability to fill their prescriptions. All others saw a rise in their inability to obtain needed medications. Among the uninsured more than 1 in 3 individuals went without a required prescription--and in those with chronic disease that number doubles. At the same time, according to AARP, over the last 5 years, the retail prices for the most popular brand-name drugs increased 41.5 percent, while the consumer price index rose 13.3 percent. So despite manufacturer assistance programs--despite the increased use of generics--the high and escalating cost of brand-name drugs is directly impacting the health of millions. Americans have learned that other countries use the very same medications which we do, made in the very same plants, yet pay considerably less. I look forward to working with my colleagues, as well as the FDA, on opportunities to advance comprehensive drug importation legislation in the months ahead. Not only does my legislation expand access to imported drugs in countries with comparable levels of regulation and oversight, but it also establishes a higher level of safety than exists today for prescription drugs sold domestically--including employing anticounterfeiting technologies and drug pedigrees to ensure the integrity of medications. In fact, it was the first to provide FDA with the resources to improve its inspection of foreign drug plants, many of which today produce medications marketed here by U.S. firms which consumers assume to be ``domestic''. CBO estimates the Federal Government alone would save $19.4 billion, so the savings from drug importation are undeniable and I hope that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction strongly considers this option. Until that time, Senator Vitter's legislation, which allows for personal use drug importation from Canada, represents a good first step. Without question, the price discrepancies between the United States and Canada are significant. For example, this week the average U.S. price for a 90-day supply of Nexium is $524.97 compared to $386.67 in Canada. Another drug, Plavix, costs $565.97 in the United States versus $434.65 in Canada for a 90-day supply. Lipitor costs $463.97 in the United States compared to $378.23 in Canada for a 90-day supply. Today our constituents--who pay for research, who subsidize industry advertising, marketing, and investment--deserve access to competition and more affordable prices. Senator Vitter's amendment has achieved strong bipartisan support in the past, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms SNOWE

Ms SNOWE. Mr. President, with nearly 17.7 million acres of forest, my home State of Maine has the key distinction of being the most heavily forested State in this great country. Trees from these plentiful forests are converted into some of the finest hardwood flooring and custom wood products in the world. Today I wish to recognize Maine Wood Concepts, a small business that utilizes Maine's bountiful resources to create quality wooden products and which recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. Maine Wood Concepts, located in the western Maine town of New Vineyard, specializes in turning, finishing, and manufacturing a variety of custom wood products, all designed to the highest standards. With an outstanding array of products including folding rules, file cleaners, drumsticks, pepper mills, industrial pieces, file handles, and even wooden nickels, this small business certainly lives up to its motto of ``turning wood into what you need.'' As one of the last wood turning companies in the country, the firm's endurance can be attributed to its elite craftsmanship and superior quality products. Forty years ago Wayne Fletcher and Earl E. Fletcher purchased the previously closed Percy Webber Wood Turning Mill and opened the Maine Wood Turning Mill. Now run by the second generation of the Fletcher family and known as Maine Wood Concepts, this small business has expanded to include Maine Wood Turning, American Pride Company, and the Lutz File and Tool Company. From humble beginnings of producing wooden toy parts and simple wood products, the firm now employs approximately 80 individuals and makes several complex wooden products. Maine Wood Concepts also seeks to ensure that Maine's abundant forest is cared for through responsible production and consumption of forest products. As a certified member of the Forest Stewardship Council, Maine Wood Concepts has met strict standards for promoting forest conservation through its chain of product distribution. Over the past 40 years, Maine Woods Concepts has continually expanded and created quality jobs for Maine residents. Their ingenuity and growth throughout the years is a tribute to the strong work ethic found in every corner of Maine. I am proud to extend my congratulations to everyone at Maine Wood Concepts on the occasion of the company's 40th anniversary and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the permanent change to interstate weight limits for Maine and Vermont, an issue I have worked on for more than 10 years. I could not be more pleased with the inclusion of this commonsense legislation that puts large trucks back where they belong--on the highway. Regrettably, the current treatment of truck weights on interstate highways is a glaring example of a provision of law that creates both safety hazards on secondary roads and tangible barriers to job growth at a time when the Nation's unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and Maine's mill towns are struggling to thrive, and I hope this bill is a step towards a solution to this glaring disparity. The Senate's consideration of this remedy is long overdue. The patchwork exemption policy that currently exists has penalized Maine and created a serious inequity that has burdened our commerce with needlessly onerous and costly regulation. The language included in this appropriations bill mirrors legislation that Senator Collins and I have introduced together since 2001. Indeed, this simple change has taken more than a decade to implement. It is my hope that this Congress, and this bill will finally resolve a longstanding inequity that has granted other States the same privilege that Maine requests--the ability to shift truck traffic to conflict- free highways where commercial traffic can efficiently travel without increasing the danger to pedestrians and drivers at crosswalks and intersections. Maine Department of Transportation engineers have certified on a number of occasions that Maine's interstate bridges are safe to carry 100,000-pound, six-axle trucks. The bridges along the interstate are in good condition, and the impact of fatigue caused by these trucks is likely near zero. The State estimates that a permanent change to weight limits would reduce pavement costs by more than $1 million per year. It would also reduce bridge rehabilitation costs by more than $300,000 per year. In addition, the pilot program implemented in 2009 demonstrated significant safety improvements when these large trucks returned to the highway. There were 14 fewer crashes--a 10 percent improvement-- involving six-axle vehicles, even with increased traffic volume on Maine's interstate system. In fact, there were no fatal crashes on the interstate during the pilot program, and five fewer injuries on secondary roads. Maine's Department of Transportation collects fatal accident data regarding large trucks, and more than 96 percent are on secondary roads, not the interstate, including the portion of I-95 that has a permanent exemption. Crash rates for Maine trucks on secondary roads are 7 to 10 times higher than on interstate highways. Trucks belong on the highway, but interstate weight limits are inconsistent across State lines, and shippers are forced to use secondary roads to move goods through States still restricted by weight limits established in the 1950s. For example, in the 122 miles between Hampden and Houlton, ME, a common route for shippers, these legal 100,000-pound trucks are forced to pass by 9 schools, 270 intersections, and more than 3,000 driveways. Maine's highways are particularly suited for six-axle truck traffic, as most of the interstate system was designed to carry freight-- including munitions and heavy equipment--to and from the former Loring Air Force Base. Time and time again, the Maine Department of Transportation has stated that it endorses an increased weight limit, and Maine's roads can safely manage heavier trucks with six axles. If a State's chief highway engineer can certify the safety of a route, and the condition of a road, a State should have the flexibility to change its weight limit on interstate highways. The significance of this permanent change cannot be overstated. Maine's secondary roads will be significantly safer when trucks are returned to the highway with stop lights and pedestrian interactions. I thank my colleagues for their continued support of this measure. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Udall to raise the concern of nutrition guidelines in our schools. This amendment aims to clarify school nutrition standards to ensure that they appropriately reflect the USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans. As you may know, on January 31, 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced the release of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Federal Government's evidence- based nutritional guidance to promote health, reduce the risk of chronic diseases, and reduce the prevalence of obesity through improved nutrition and physical activity. However, just 2 weeks prior, on January 13, 2011, USDA released a proposed rule to improve nutrition requirements for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program to align them with the 2005 ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans.'' This was bureaucratic confusion exemplified. Why not delay the proposed rule for our Federal meal programs by 2 weeks and instead release it to reflect the most recent nutrition guidelines that were issued on January 31? While I understand and agree with the necessity and desire to update the nutrition standards in schools, wouldn't it be more effective to utilize the most recent, science-based guidelines to reflect those recommendations? In my home State of Maine, like most in the Nation, we find ourselves struggling with an obesity epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control, today in the United States, 64 percent of adults and 28 percent of high school students are either overweight or obese. Equally, if not more disturbing, are the statistics revealing that only 23 percent of adults and 21 percent of high school students eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily. With more than 31 million children currently participating in the National School Lunch Program and more than 11 million participating in the National School Breakfast Program, I believe that good nutrition within our Nation's schools is more important than ever. And that is all the more pressing, given that many children consume at least half of their daily calories at school, and for many students participating in these programs, the food served at school may be the only food they regularly eat. For that, and many other reasons, I stand here today in support of Senate amendment No. 757. Specifically, the amendment would ensure that Federal school meal programs will be permitted to provide fruits and vegetables consistent with the most recent dietary guidelines. Specifically, the recently proposed rule to improve nutrition requirements for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program would limit the total servings of starchy vegetables, including the white potato, to one cup per week and completely eliminate those vegetables from school breakfasts. I am particularly disturbed by this recommendation because they actually contradict the recently published 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as the 2005 Dietary Guidelines they are supposed to reflect. Our most recent national Dietary Guidelines--those released this past January--simply state that ``intake by Americans of some nutrients is low enough to be of public health concern. They are potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D.'' As you may know, there are few fruits or vegetables that contain the levels of potassium in potatoes. In fact, a medium potato--5.3 oz with the skin--is not only a good source of potassium, but also contains significantly more potassium--200 mg more--than its nearest rival, the banana. Additionally, one serving of potato has as much fiber as broccoli and provides 13 percent of the daily recommended value. In an attempt to combat these deficiencies the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommend that all Americans, including school age children, consume 5 cups of starchy vegetables a week. This is an increase in recommended consumption from the recommendations of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for 3 cups of starchy vegetables per week. And yet the proposed rule would limit the total number of servings of starchy vegetables to one cup per week in our school lunch program, which is entirely inconsistent with the 2005 and 2010 Dietary Guideline recommendations. I believe that it is clear that potatoes are a nutrient powerhouse, and the fact that the white potato offers 13 percent of a child's daily potassium requirements for less than 5 cents per serving provides further support for keeping potatoes in school meals, especially during challenging budgetary times. The Federal Government should allow our struggling schools to make fiscally responsible choices that offer the most nutritional return on investment. In fact, USDA has estimated that the proposed meal plan will increase school lunch costs by $6.8 billion over 5 years, and it cannot be denied that a significant part of this increase is due to the limit on potatoes. Limiting starchy vegetables to 1 cup per week will increase costs by approximately 5.6 percent with possible adverse affects on nutritional quality. It has been well documented that, currently, nine out of ten Americans are not achieving vegetable and fruit consumption recommendations. I am disappointed that during such a time, that the USDA would propose rules denying our nation's youth access to nutrient- rich foods as part of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. And let me just say before the issue is raised that no one is arguing in favor of a diet based on french fries. The truth is--to combat the wave of obesity and promote more healthy food choices we must promote food items that present a diverse set of vitamins and minerals. No matter how they are prepared, potatoes are currently included in healthy school meal plans to meet national dietary guidelines. Yet many Americans seem to believe all potatoes served in schools are in the form of deep fried french fries. This may have been the case at one time, but today, according to our own school food service administrators, most potatoes served in schools are baked, not fried. Like 80 percent of schools nationwide, the deep fryers in York and Kittery, ME schools, for example, were removed years ago. As the school nutrition director of those schools, Ms. Doris Demers informed me recently that, in her 18 years working in school nutrition, she has never seen fryers in a Maine school nutrition program. When prepared properly, the potato is packed with nutrition and is a cost-effective option for the school lunch and breakfast programs. While I will continue to endeavor with my colleagues to support improved nutritional standards for all Americans, I am concerned that many throughout our nation cannot help but get confused about which guideline they should try to follow. For these reasons, I respectfully request that my colleagues join me in encouraging USDA to be consistent on their nutritional advice to the American public--of all ages.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. This bill would enhance the research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal blooms, HABs, and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will occur is only half the battle. This bill addresses not only the mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, but also prioritizes the effective transition of research products into implementable actions that state and local governments can take to minimize adverse impacts. I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. I also want to thank the bill's additional co-sponsors, Senators Begich, Rockefeller, Whitehouse, Gillibrand and Cardin for their support. In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as ``red tide'' can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, PSP, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year. In 2009, Maine's shellfish industry experienced a severe economic crisis as result of extensive rainfall and subsequent outbreak of red tide. The resulting closure of 97 percent of the State's shellfish beds and 100 percent of the offshore beds in federal waters for several months during the peak harvesting season was even more damaging to the shellfish industry and coastal economy than previous outbreaks in 2005 and 2008. In December 2010, Department of Commerce Secretary Locke found that the 2009 red tide bloom had caused a commercial fishery failure. Despite the recognition of their losses, fishermen have never received any economic assistance or compensation for the 2009 fishery disaster. The HABs and hypoxia programs are critical to Maine's $50 million shellfish industry and the 3000 jobs that depend on it. Luckily, we have not experienced strong blooms in 2010 and 2011, and recent years have seen an increase in testing capabilities that allow for finer scale monitoring so that localized areas may remain open during an event. These critical procedures are a direct result of programs established by the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Acts of 1998 and 2004. While we have made great strides in bloom prediction and monitoring, it is clear that these problems are continuing to increase in magnitude and demand our ongoing commitment and attention. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'' are now occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shores of Louisiana. This area, averaging 6700 square miles in size over the last 5 years, is exacerbating the already difficult recovery of the Gulf region from last year's devastating oil spill. Dead zones are also occurring in more areas than ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas, and in the Chesapeake Bay. The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks. This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among state and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose significant economic impacts. The bill would require development of Regional Research and Action Plans to identify baseline research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to ensure the public is informed of the dangers these events can present. A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and efficient response to future events. Finally, this bill would provide for research, response and mitigation of harmful algal blooms annypoxia in fresh water systems. If enacted, this critical reauthorization would greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to safeguard not only their health and the health of the marine environment, but we must also protect the jobs that depend on it. The existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has achieved a great deal already, and this authorization will allow it to continue providing such a vital service to the nation. I thank Senator Bill Nelson, and all of my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, across the country one of the most treasured and comforting thoughts of home is our own family's homemade cooking. Regardless of whether this delicious homemade cooking is a main dish, a condiment, or a dessert, we will always remember the wonderful way it tastes. In my home State of Maine, one small business has taken the fond memories of home cooking and developed a successful small business. Today, I commend Mother's Mountain, located in the coastal town of Falmouth, which this month will celebrate its 30th anniversary. Growing up during the Great Depression, Carol Tanner remembered her mother making homemade mustard for her father, and in later years she too acquired a fondness for this delectable condiment. In 1981, Carol Tanner and her then business partner now husband, Dennis Proctor, took Carol's childhood memories and turned that single mustard recipe into a business which now offers over 30 appetizing specialty products. Today, they make dozens of award winning jams, jellies, sauces, marinades and honeys. They also emphasize healthier alternatives by producing natural, gluten free, salt free, and fat free products. As a family-run small business, Mother's Mountain employs three generations, who are instrumental in maintaining the quality and customer service, which is the key ingredient in their success. In order to ensure that their customers receive personal attention and the highest quality product, Dennis and Carol personally hand-pack and label each and every jar. Mother's Mountain creations have received extraordinary reviews from Maine Magazine and Eat Around Maine. In addition to selling its homemade goods, Mother's Mountain also provides appetizing recipe ideas to its customers using their products. Mother's Mountain also produces delectable items for other Maine-based companies, such as L.L. Bean. Small businesses like Mother's Mountain are the lifeblood of our economy, and indicative of the great entrepreneurial spirit that is alive and well in Maine. I congratulate Carol and Dennis, for operating such a successful business from the ground up out of their home, and commend them for passing down this strong work ethic through three generations. I am proud to celebrate Mother's Mountain's 30th year anniversary, and offer my best wishes for their continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize Mills and Mills Law Office, a small family-owned law firm that has provided vital legal services to the people of western Maine for 100 years. The Mills family name has long been synonymous with the Farmington area. Sumner Mills began a small law firm there in May of 1911, after moving his family from the coastal town of Stonington, where he had previously opened a small law practice in 1904. Throughout the years, Mills and Mills has offered its customers a wide range of legal services, and at present primarily focuses on estate planning, business issues, and real estate. The company has previously offered fire and casualty insurance. The firm currently has nine staff members, including Paul Mills, the grandson of the founder, who joined the firm in 1977 and is now a senior attorney. On August 26, 150 members of the Farmington community gathered at the law office to celebrate its 100th anniversary. The date was selected because it marked what would have been the 100th birthday of Peter Mills, Sumner's son and longtime attorney at Mills and Mills. Attendees reminisced about the law firm's storied history, and the event provided an opportunity to look forward to the office's future of helping the residents of western Maine. Today, I also recognize the longstanding commitment and vast contributions of the Mills family to public service in the State of Maine. Peter, who joined Mills and Mills in 1940, was a member of the Maine House of Representatives for three terms, as well as the State senate for two terms. He also served as a municipal court judge, and was later U.S. attorney for Maine for 16 years under three Presidents. His father had been a State legislator in Hancock County before moving to Farmington. Many of Peter's children have gone on to follow in their father's and grandfather's footsteps. Janet Mills served in the Maine House of Representatives, and later became our State's first female attorney general. Peter Mills III, a former State senator from Somerset County and twice a candidate for Governor, now serves as executive director of the Maine Turnpike Authority. And Doctor Dora Anne Mills is the former director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Three generations of the Mills family have worked tirelessly to serve the community in Franklin County and throughout western Maine. With a passion for the law and a dedication to public service, the Mills family has left an indelible mark on Maine history. Mills and Mills remains a tribute to the critical work begun 100 years ago by Sumner Mills. I thank the entire Mills family for all of their efforts, and wish them and everyone at Mills and Mills success in their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Sessions in introducing the Honest Budget Act of 2011. At this critical juncture in our Nation's fiscal history, we must no longer allow Washington to rely on an astonishing array of dishonest budget gimmicks to enable and conceal countless billions in Federal deficit spending. We can no longer accept budgets that compromise our economic growth, living standards, or opportunities that have been a hallmark of America's greatness, which is why Senator Sessions and I have introduced this important legislation. The Honest Budget Act of 2011 will attack Washington's frivolous spending by stripping away many of the most egregious budget gimmicks in Washington, by making it harder for the Federal Government to spend money it does not have, and by confronting the culture of fiscal manipulation that is bleeding future generations of prosperity. Our budgetary process is intrinsically broken. Congress is required by law to adopt a budget resolution by April 15, yet in the past 36 years Congress has met that deadline just six times. Throughout the last 10 years, Congress has approved a budget resolution on only six occasions. Congress failed to complete action on a budget resolution for 5 fiscal years: fiscal year 1999 in 1998, fiscal year 2003 in 2002, fiscal year 2005 in 2004, fiscal year 2007 in 2006, and fiscal year 2011 in 2010. Not surprisingly, those fiscal years ended with large, spendthrift, omnibus appropriation measures or continuing resolutions. Last year, no budget and no appropriations bills passed for the first time since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974, resulting in an almost shutdown of the Federal Government in April 2011. We have had 87 continuing resolutions in the past 14 fiscal years and we even failed to pass all 12 individual appropriations bills last year. Not a single appropriations bill passed for fiscal year 2011! Moreover, the majority in the Senate has failed to pass a budget for 889 days now. No business or household in America can function without a budget, yet, there are no consequences for congressional inaction. The Honest Budget Act will change this. This tacit acceptance of emergent dysfunction in our budget and appropriations processes has only exacerbated the trend-line of unbridled federal spending, and it is symptomatic of the miniscule value Congress has assigned to averting economically corrosive deficits and debt. Congress violates the budgetary process and existing rules with impunity and no consequences year after year while our national debt is rising, living standard for millions of Americans is faltering, and America is losing a competitive advantage that was once the hallmark of this great nation. It is time we put an end to this habitual dysfunction! The Honest Budget Act of 2011 will address the many shortcomings of the budget process and it will force Congress to be accountable to the American people. Specifically, this legislation lays out nine specific fixes to ensure that the loopholes and gimmicks often utilized to circumvent the rules are eliminated for all time. Currently, the Congressional Budget Act empowers any Senator to raise a point of order preventing the consideration of appropriation bills without a concurrent budget resolution in place, but the Senate can waive it with a simple majority vote. As a result, the point of order is rarely raised and Congress can spend money without a plan or budget restraints. The Honest Budget Act will strengthen the point of order to require a vote of three-fifths of Senators to waive, enhancing the ability of Members to demand the Senate agree to a concurrent budget resolution before moving appropriation bills. Simply put, our legislation ensures that if Congress fails to pass a budget, then no appropriations bills will be considered. Another loophole that has often been exploited to spend excessively is designating certain federal spending as an ``emergency.'' Spending that Congress designates as an ``emergency'' is exempt from the controls designed to enforce budget restraint. By definition, an emergency should be necessary, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. I understand that the Federal response to emergencies such as natural disasters and acts of war must be deployed rapidly and without unnecessary budgetary constraints. Unfortunately, attaching the ``emergency'' designation to a measure is easy it is simply written into the bill text. A Senator can raise a point of order against the designation during floor consideration, but it can be waived with 60 votes. Examples of the emergency designation abuse abound. For instance, the 2008 supplemental appropriation bill included $210 million in ``emergency'' spending for the 2010 Census even though, since its ratification in 1788, the Constitution has required a census every 10 years. Moreover, the fiscal year 2011 appropriation omnibus bill included $159 billion in emergency spending for the Afghan and Iraq operations wars the U.S. has been fighting for 10 years! The Honest Budget Act fixes this broken process by prohibiting any bill, joint resolution, or conference report from carrying an emergency requirement unless it is added via an amendment. A supermajority would then be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair. A new point of order could be created against an emergency requirement in an amendment that requires 60 votes to waive. These simple fixes are just a few of the commonsense budget process enhancements the Honest Budget Act makes. These are the types of focused improvements that must be implemented to work alongside a balanced budget amendment to ensure that Congress begins to operate in a more honest and open fashion. Since 2002 the Nation has run a deficit each and every year and our gross debt has increased from $6.2 trillion to almost $15 trillion. Over the past 5 years alone, government has managed to increase spending by a remarkable 40 percent, contributing to the largest budget deficits in our history over the last 3 consecutive years. The Federal Government is now borrowing roughly 40 cents of every dollar it spends. I do not believe that any of my colleagues in the Senate would argue that the budget process is working properly or as intended. The reality could not be starker. Our Nation can no longer afford the gimmicks and loopholes too frequently used in the past to dodge existing budgetary restraints. Targeted budget process reforms will compel Congress to return to the regiment and discipline of the budget and appropriations processes, and thereby force the government to establish priorities and abide by those priorities. In an August of 1987 televised Oval Office address, President Reagan said, ``The Congressional budget process is neither reliable nor credible; in short, it needs to be fixed.'' It has now been nearly a quarter-century since President Reagan sought to fix the budget process. It is time we heed his advice.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan legislation we will be considering this week regarding the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011. I am very pleased it received overwhelming support for us to proceed to consideration of this most critical legislation. This day has been a long time in the making, if you ask those of us who have been calling on our government, under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, to hold our foreign competitors accountable when they violate our trade laws. In that respect I want to express my gratitude to my colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown, with whom I have partnered in repeatedly calling for a vote on this crucial legislation, as well as the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, for also being with us and working on this legislation to address all of the facets of this issue that have been long overdue in consideration by the Congress. This day has been far too long in coming for the millions of American workers who are out of work and whose wages have been decimated as a result of our inability to compete with unfairly subsidized Chinese imports. Since Congress first began requiring the Treasury to analyze the exchange rate policies of foreign countries in 1988, China has been cited as a currency manipulator five times, all occurring between 1992 and 1994. Since then, despite China's continued and in many ways intensification of these practices, our government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has failed to cite China even once for its policy of fixing its currency to the dollar. This is also despite Congress's repeated efforts to make currency manipulation a top priority in our Nation's trade agenda. In fact, in April 2005 I joined my Senate colleagues in decisively supporting an amendment calling on China to reform its currency practices. This action is largely viewed as helping to prompt China to allow its currency to gradually appreciate between 2005 and 2008. In July 2007 I joined a majority of colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee in favor of reporting the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2007 by a vote of 20 to 1. That was 4 years ago. We started 6 years ago, and yet we still had not had any concrete, substantive action on this fundamental issue. None of these bills were brought up for a vote by the full Senate. From 2008 to mid-2010, China again froze its exchange rate constant in an effort to maintain its production edge during the financial crisis. It was only last June that China showed signs that it might allow the RMB to gradually appreciate. But according to the Congressional Research Service, it gained only 6 or 7 percent on the dollar over the last year. Faced with these blatantly inequitable trade distortions, I have witnessed Maine's manufacturers and their employees going to great lengths to improve their competitiveness. According to the Manufacturers Association of Maine, workers in our State have increased output per employee by 6 percent over a period of 8 years--from 60,000 in 2001 to 89,000 in 2009. Yet the dramatic job losses we have witnessed in the American manufacturing sector over the last decade tell a very different story. According to recent reports, between 2001, when China joined the WTO and 2010, 4.1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in this country, and 1.9 million of those jobs or 47 percent can be directly linked to our growing trade deficit with China. In Maine, this withering of our manufacturing base has contributed to wage and salary employment levels falling precipitously through December 2010, with job losses of 26,900, a 4.4-percent drop. Overall, employment numbers in my State have returned to 1999 levels--1999 levels--erasing any economic gains of the previous 10 years. U.S. manufacturing employees, including thousands who live in small towns throughout my State, are recognized as the most productive workers in the world. These are the types of jobs that should be thriving in a global economy, but they cannot if foreign producers, such as those in China, are playing with a proverbial stacked deck. For this reason I rise today to urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act, legislation that I have authored with the Senator from Ohio to enforce the rules and address a paramount contributing factor in the decimation of our Nation's once unparalleled manufacturing base--currency exchange rate manipulation. For over a decade China has manipulated its exchange rate by pegging the Chinese renminbi to the dollar. As a result, China's currency is estimated to be undervalued by anywhere from 12 to 50 percent according to the Congressional Research Service. In fact, despite the Chinese Government's announcement last year that it would begin allowing its currency to gradually appreciate, the Treasury Department's exchange rate report, released May 27, noted that ``the real exchange rate of the renminbi remains substantially undervalued.'' Some of my colleagues will no doubt argue that mill closings and layoffs in States such as Maine have little to do with the value of the Chinese currency, and that legislation to hold countries such as China accountable when they intervene in currency markets will not create jobs or grow our economy. For that matter, proponents of China's entry into the World Trade Organization 10 years ago also claimed that liberalizing trade with China would improve our trade deficit. At the time of its entry into the WTO in December 2001, China agreed to provide greater transparency when it comes to trade policies, to enforce intellectual property rights, and to end discriminatory and unpredictable rules impeding market access for American products. In fact, as the agreement to allow China into the WTO was being negotiated in 2000, President Clinton argued it would create, in his words, ``a win-win result for both countries.'' However, as President John Adams once said, ``facts are stubborn things.'' Let's examine some of the evidence. For one, in January, I met with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer a few hours before he attended a private meeting at the White House. Mr. Ballmer told me that in fiscal year 2010 over 30 million PCs were sold in China that ran illegal copies of Windows. Rather telling, he noted that while China is their second largest personal computer market in the world, it is 70th in terms of Microsoft revenue per personal computer. If one of the largest and most integrated companies in the world is being hamstrung by China's piracy and blatant infringement of intellectual property rights, how can we expect smaller U.S. companies to stand a chance when it comes to entering the Chinese market? On top of its failure to police intellectual property rights infringement, unlike most other countries where exchange rates are determined by market forces, the Chinese Government does not allow the renminbi to fluctuate freely and instead pegs it tightly to the U.S. dollar at a rate that makes it significantly undervalued vis-a-vis the dollar. As a result, Chinese exports to the United States are artificially made less expensive, as we well know, and the cost of U.S. exports to China and the rest of the world are made more expensive by a similar or equivalent amount. According to a new report featured last week in the Wall Street Journal, one significant consequence of China's trade practices is that over the last two decades it has surged as an exporter at a ``break- neck pace,'' while the growth of U.S. spending on imports from China has climbed steadily. As indicated by this chart to my right, according to the report, imports from China as a share of U.S. spending climbed from below 1 percent throughout much of the 1990s, to over 5 percent today. There is no question that this trajectory reflects it in this chart, seeing China as a total of U.S. spending, and what has occurred is a dramatic rise--without abatement, without any intervention whatsoever--and we have seen a steady major rise in terms of the amount of imports and spending by Americans on Chinese imports. Due in large part to China's currency manipulation and other trade- distorting practices, manufacturers in Maine and places like Maine have not been able to compete against this surge in artificially cheap Chinese imports. As Americans spend increasingly more on Chinese products, as illustrated in the chart, these imports displace goods made in the USA. Consequently, China's currency undervaluation has contributed directly to our soaring trade deficit with China, which has ballooned from $83 billion, when China joined the WTO in 2001, to $273 billion in 2010. Those numbers are worth repeating--when you are speaking about $83 billion, which our trade deficit was in 2001, and now in 2010 it has skyrocketed to $273 billion. This ever-expanding, explosive trade deficit, unprecedented, of course, in our history, which grew 20 percent between 2009 and 2010, destroys existing jobs, prevents new job creation and, as economists from the Economic Policy Institute have indicated, increases the global ``race to the bottom,'' in their words, when it comes to middle-class wages. For example, the Economic Policy Institute recently released a report noting that as plants have closed, workers displaced by trade from the manufacturing sector have had particular difficulty in securing comparable employment, and average wages of those who found new jobs fell by 11 to 13 percent. As we see on the chart, reflected and demonstrated here, most graphically, the Economic Policy Institute report discovered that since China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and through 2010, when we saw that explosive growth of the trade deficit from $83 billion to $273 billion between 2001 and 2010, the increase in the U.S.-China trade deficit eliminated or displaced 2.8 million American jobs or 310,000 jobs per year. As we can see illustrated on the chart, virtually every State in America has been affected by the trade deficits with China, with displaced thousands and thousands of jobs, and in less than a decade 2.8 million American jobs. In my State of Maine this means the trade deficit has displaced nearly 10,000 workers or nearly 2 percent of State employment. As the chart depicts, the pain of job losses is not unique to one individual State or region of the country. Workers in all 50 States, from California to South Carolina, from Michigan to Texas, have been harmed and unable to compete against artificially cheap Chinese imports. While these charts and reports may paint a picture of doom and gloom, there is recourse available to American workers injured by unfair trade. Under the U.S. countervailing duty law, tariffs can be imposed on imports benefiting from foreign government subsidies if it demonstrates that the subsidies cause or threaten injury to a U.S. industry producing the same or similar product. But while numerous U.S. industries have attempted to bring allegations of currency manipulation as an export subsidy under our trade laws, in each instance the Department of Commerce has refused to investigate. For example, it is a little known fact that the U.S. pulp and paper industry employs 900,000 workers--roughly the equivalent number employed by the U.S. auto industry--making it an indispensable economic pillar in rural communities in Maine and across the country. Last year, several U.S. paper manufacturers with mills in Maine brought forward allegations that China was violating trade rules by illegally subsidizing their products in the U.S. market. Just over a year ago, in 2010, I testified before the International Trade Commission and made the case--and we were ultimately successful on these points--that foreign paper manufacturers in China and Indonesia were illegally selling their products in the United States at unfairly subsidized and underpriced rates. Amazingly, however, the Commerce Department refused to investigate whether China's currency practices constituted an illegal--and therefore countervailable--export subsidy. Simply put, this failure to take action is unacceptable. In response, in November of last year, the Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, and I sent a letter to the Senate's leadership asking that a vote be scheduled on legislation directing the Commerce Department to investigate allegations that currency undervaluation provides a countervailable subsidy at the expense of American jobs. When the Senate failed to take action, Senator Brown and I filed the House- passed currency reform bill as an amendment to the tax extender package in December of 2010. In January 2011, during Chinese President Hu's visit to the United States, we sent a letter to Secretary Geithner underscoring the need to enforce trade remedy laws to provide U.S. industries affected by China's currency practices with a lifeline to compete. And, finally, in response to our government's failure to investigate these unfair trade practices, on February 10 of this year, Senator Brown and I introduced our legislation, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. Simply put, the Department of Commerce has failed to use its authority to respond to currency manipulation by investigating these allegations brought by U.S. industry and placing countervailing duties on foreign imports benefiting from these unfair trade practices. The purpose of our bill is to make clear that Commerce has the ability to investigate--regardless of whether the subsidy is provided to all foreign businesses in a given country or just to those that are exporting. That is an important point, because if we wait to make that demonstration, they can continue to export their goods to the United States before we could ever reach the point of being able to make that determination on imposing that countervailing subsidy or determining which companies in China are actually doing the exporting. So it is important to eliminate that distinction, because that has been a barrier. In fact, it certainly prevented the Department of Commerce, in their words, from being able to impose any kind of subsidies or to investigate the case before they could impose a countervailing duty. So this way we eliminate the distinction, irrespective of whether a business is exporting within China their goods. The point is, we don't want to wait for the Department of Commerce to make that determination. Those industries that do export--and once they do export--have already done the damage. So it is clearly important to be able to have the Department of Commerce in a position of being able at the outset to initiate this investigation on those companies that actually export goods to the United States from China at an unfair price. Notably, our bill does not legislatively deem that a currency undervaluation satisfies the requirement of finding a countervailing subsidy. It just requires Congress to determine on a case-by-case basis whether currency undervaluation is giving foreign companies an unfair competitive advantage over their counterparts in our country. Since introducing our legislation in February, we have added 11 bipartisan Senate cosponsors, and the House companion to our legislation has over 200 cosponsors. Furthermore, on September 23, I was proud to join as a lead original cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation before us today, which combines the key elements of our bill with critical provisions of the legislation authored by the Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, and the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, that I also supported as an initiative when it came before the Senate Finance Committee in 2007. The merged bill utilizes U.S. trade law to counter the economic damage and harm to U.S. manufacturers caused by currency manipulation and it authorizes new consequences for countries that fail to adopt appropriate policies to eliminate unfair currency undervaluation. Most critically, it will also provide businesses that are damaged by China's trade practices with the tools to respond on behalf of American workers. It ensures our government will heed the requests of a wide range of U.S. industries, such as paper manufacturers in Maine, to investigate whether currency undervaluation by a government provides a subsidy, and one in which we can initiate an action by imposing countervailing duties. Finally, while some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that challenging China's unfair trade practices could lead that government to retaliate against U.S. goods and jeopardize our economic recovery, the fact is the potential benefit of currency reform is enormous when it comes to fighting unemployment and boosting the American economy, because as of today China essentially rigs the game to undercut true market competition and undermine U.S. businesses. For example, a study released in June by the Economic Policy Institute discovered that addressing Chinese currency manipulation and enforcing fair trade provisions when it comes to these violations would support the creation of more than 2 million U.S. jobs, increase the gross domestic product by as much as $285 billion, and reduce the deficit by more than $70 billion a year. Failing to act now is not an option. The International Monetary Fund recently announced that China will surpass the United States economically in 2016--a mere 5 years from now. If this turns out to be true, it will be due in large part to our current policies, which are fueling our decline and China's rise. We import more than we export, keep running huge trade deficits, consume more than we produce, and outsource thousands of jobs. If one manufacturer is compelled to close because we failed to combat subsidized imports, that is one less manufacturer able to export and help grow our economy. And frankly, if there was ever a moment to empower a workforce when it comes to competing in a global economy, is there any doubt, given our dire economic state, that time is now? From Maine to the Midwest, China's currency manipulation has been among the greatest impediments to our manufacturing sector. Unfortunately, the silence of our government when it comes to this issue has become the silence of our factories. It is time to take action to rebuild our economic foundations, and this legislation will ensure our government has the tools to respond on behalf of American companies and workers by imposing countervailing duties on exports subsidized by currency manipulation undervaluation. It is absolutely vital we take this action this year--right now-- because, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, if you look at the historical picture of the consideration of this legislation, it is clear it has been underestimated, it has been overlooked in terms of the value it brings to our country, to the value it brings to the manufacturing segment of our economy, and to the value it brings to our workers. I am deeply concerned, because it also seems as if it is an either/or proposition when we talk about trade-related issues--either we do nothing or we will invite a trade war. We have to look at the trade practices of our trading partners and the laws which they are required to uphold--in this case, for China, through the World Trade Organization. They made a commitment at the onset when they joined that organization, and they have refused to uphold it when it comes to leveling the playing field and creating the equilibrium--to let the currency flow as required and stipulated under that agreement when they became a member of that organization. They have failed time and again to monitor these agreements and to monitor the actions of their own companies with respect to this practice, and it has decimated many industries across this country. As I indicated with this chart, virtually every State in America has been damaged as a result of the loss of jobs because we have failed to uphold the standards of fair trade. So it isn't about encouraging a trade war. Far from it. I think it creates not only a level playing field, but it creates an equitable circumstance for our trading partners. And it is important for those countries, such as China, to be prepared to live up to the agreements to which they have subscribed through the World Trade Organization. They are required to live by their agreement, and that means they have to establish the standards where they cannot manipulate their currency, as they have been doing for more than two decades. It has been a problem, and it has been a persistent problem. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle--whether it is Democratic or Republican administrations, the presidency or here in Congress--have failed to take a concrete, concerted action that could have made a profound difference long before this point. This could have been averted. Time and again we haven't been able to have a Treasury Secretary designate China as a currency manipulator that I think would have then prompted much more significant action on the part of any administration. So that issue has been addressed in this legislation--to change the threshold, to redesign and to target the legislation more precisely so that it will give the tools to the administration, and specifically to the Treasury Secretary, to be able to designate China as a currency manipulator, which then kicks in certain safeguards and actions. The same is true for the Department of Commerce, that they will be able to initiate at the outset an investigation to determine whether devaluing the currency on the part of China has contributed to unfair trading practices and, obviously, adversely affecting our goods and workers and companies here in the United States. It is important to give the tools to our agencies to make sure they can fulfill their obligations. I know there are times in which they have not done so, even when they have had the tools, and they have been empowered to use those tools, much to the detriment of our industries--much to the detriment of these jobs and these manufacturing companies all across America--that have either closed their doors or they have sharply curtailed their businesses or their level of employment. I know that firsthand from my State. It has brought tremendous consequences to rural Maine and to rural America as a result, because that is what has been the basis of our economy. The manufacturing segment of our industry has been so critical to good-paying jobs, and that ultimately has been damaged and harmed as a result of this currency manipulation issue that has been persistent on the part of the Chinese, and one that we now have to address through this legislation. I appreciate this opportunity to address the Senate on this critical issue. As we go forward in the days ahead in debating this legislation, I look forward to working with my colleagues--the Senator from Ohio, who has done yeoman's work on this issue and has brought this issue to the highest levels in terms of its attention and importance to this country, most assuredly. I am looking forward to working with him and our other colleagues to make sure we can fulfill our commitment to passing this legislation. It is not only about debating it, it is not just voting on it, it is about its becoming law. I think we should bring this to its logical conclusion and send it to the President for his signature. The time has come, as I said, and it is long overdue. We have failed the workers and the industries of this country who are trying to compete and who can make goods. We are not going to forsake our manufacturing sector, because we have the ability to make the best goods with the most productive workers in the world, and we should be able to continue to do that. The only way we can fulfill that obligation to them is through this legislation. There is no other recourse at this moment in time. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to three truly remarkable Mainers--Elaine Greene, Carmen Footer and JoAnn Miller, affectionately known as, The Freeport Flag Ladies. It has been said that great things come in threes. That adage applies many, many times over for my friends and phenomenal Mainers, all retired and residing together in Elaine's home on School Street in Freeport. I am in awe of them and their story which is one of unabashed patriotism, limitless inspiration, and a love of country that makes us all inexpressibly proud. Every Tuesday morning from 8 to 9 a.m., regardless of weather and irrespective of season, these renowned Flag Ladies have stood not far from another icon in Maine, L.L. Bean, with the presence and exuberance of not one, but three Statues of Liberty having come to life for the single purpose of paying rightful homage to those who have sacrificed for all of us--our brave service men and women and our first responders. And incredibly, they have never, ever missed a Tuesday--not once. They have given up vacations and used the money they saved for this and other endeavors, including sending care packages to those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They travel to Bangor International Airport two to three times a week to join the Maine Troop Greeters, or to Pease International in New Hampshire, they attend numerous troop send-off or welcome-home ceremonies, and Elaine estimates she has taken 1 million photos of the troops when they greet them at various locations. These women project the inescapable belief that our strength and resolve as a State and a nation have always emanated not from Augusta, not from Washington, but from the people themselves--from tireless patriots of their own volition performing the most extraordinary of deeds. I well recall when we stood shoulder to shoulder as the steel beams from the Twin Towers--bequeathed by officials at Ground Zero to the town of Freeport--journeyed this past May from their hallowed home in New York to be enshrined in a 9/11 Memoria1. Elaine, Carmen, and JoAnn's leadership in bringing the steel to Maine was instrumental. How fitting it is that this massive steel beam that once undergirded the World Trade Center now undergird our spirits, our hearts, and our memories in Freeport. After all, there are only a finite number of steel pieces that remain from the Twin Towers, and the requests for them within America and around the world far exceed what is available. To have the proud distinction of displaying this beam--in which so much meaning is infused--defies description. But behind Maine's selection was the knowledge that we would be more than custodians of this patriotic emblem--that we would in fact be its steward. What better stewards than the Freeport Flag Ladies. The words are difficult to find to adequately convey the height of my admiration, not to mention the sense of privilege I have felt when joining them on Main Street to wave American flags. People honk as they drive by, they wave, they stop and thank them--it really is something. Let me just say, it was the highest of honors to join Elaine, Carmen, and JoAnn on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks in Freeport. Ever since I learned of their exceptional response to the horrific events of 9/11, Tuesdays have never been the same for me, for my staff, and for the countless individuals who have encountered them in Freeport or heard about them in the news. Indeed, after the heinous acts that occurred that Tuesday morning on September 11, 2001, when President Bush asked us all, as Americans, to walk outside and light a candle in remembrance of those individuals taken tragically from us too soon, Elaine, Carmen, and JoAnn did just that. But they also kindled a deeper flame in all of us by bringing American flags with them to wave on Main Street in Freeport. And for that we are so very grateful. It is fitting that these three women with backgrounds in health care have taken it upon themselves--one Tuesday at a time, one greeting at a time, one photo at a time, and one good word at a time--to help heal our Nation by harnessing the best of who we are and what we stand for, whether in the best of times or when facing adversity. When considering their stalwart dedication to our country and those who serve her, I cannot help but recall one of Maine's giants and America's military heroes, GEN Joshua Chamberlain, who once said, ``I long to be in the field again, doing my part to keep the old flag up, with all its stars.'' The Freeport Flag Ladies, by being civilian sentinels of freedom have indeed been doing their part for 10 years. Thank you Elaine, Carmen, and JoAnn.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, my home State of Maine's long tradition of entrepreneurship includes a marked dedication to creative and quality craftsmanship. Small businesses in Maine strive to be both imaginative in design and superior in value. One such small business is Blacksmiths Winery of South Casco, one of Maine's largest wineries and the first in the State to be awarded both the silver and bronze medals in international wine competitions. Today I commend Blacksmiths Winery on their continued success and commitment to excellence. In the late 1800s, William Watkins lived and worked as an apprentice and blacksmith in South Casco. He was known to be an exacting craftsman, insisting upon making his own nails to ensure quality, rather than using the machine made variety. After William stopped working the blacksmith's forge, his son Albert shouldered the responsibility of the family business. Over 100 years later, Blacksmiths Winery opened in the same location, which remains full of entrepreneurial vigor. The original buildings, including Watkins' home, barn, and shop make up the main structures of Blacksmiths Winery. As it takes its name from the profession of the earlier tenants, so Blacksmiths Winery certainly carries on the same enthusiasm for craftsmanship. Blacksmiths Winery opened its doors in 1999, producing 1,000 cases of wine in the first year, and has since continually grown and expanded their award-winning product. Blacksmiths Winery now offers its customers a wide variety of over 20 different wines and sodas. They produce the more traditional red and white wines, such as Cabernet Sauvignon, but are widely popular for their fruitier and more adventurous flavors, including raspberry and rhubarb wines. Many of Blacksmiths' products are based on the flavors of locally grown Maine blueberries, elderberries, cranberries, and apples. Blacksmiths also makes nonalcoholic soda from wine grapes, including Merlot and Riesling flavors, and is continually seeking to expand its offerings. Visitors can taste these wines and sodas any day of the week, and on weekends, Blacksmiths opens its beautiful porch to guests where they can relax and enjoy a variety of beverages. Highlighting Blacksmiths ingenuity, one of the company's popular fruit wines came about completely by chance. Through a packaging flaw, Blacksmiths acquired a large bunch of raspberries. Rather than waste the fruit, the company produced sample batches of what has become its raspberry dessert wine. This happy accident was then sent to the shelves at retail locations across Maine, to the delight of thirsty wine drinkers. This ingenuity is an example of the sort of creativity and adaptability, so characteristic of Maine entrepreneurs, that continues to keep the markets fresh with new and interesting products for consumers. Blacksmiths Winery has demonstrated a never quenching thirst to utilize new techniques and experiment with unique flavor combinations, a quality which has led in large measure to their growing recognition. Indeed, the company's popularity is growing, as it has recently begun shipping its award-winning wines to a number of out-of-state locations. I thank everyone at the Blacksmiths Winery for their hard work and innovation, and wish them the best success in years to come.