Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance programs which for decades have served as a critical lifeline for thousands of Mainers whose jobs have been adversely affected by increases in foreign imports and shifts in production overseas. During my entire tenure in Congress, I have worked tirelessly with my colleagues to reform and expand TAA programs to assist workers, businesses, and communities harmed by trade liberalization in competing in an increasingly global marketplace. And frankly if there were ever a moment to rebuild and equip our workforce to make greater strides when it comes to competing in the global economy is there any doubt, that time is now? Consider that China will surpass the U.S. economically in 2016--a mere five years from now--according to the International Monetary Fund. Consider that the total U.S. international trade deficit for 2010 was $497 billion, up from $374 billion in 2009. And our trade deficit with China increased from $226 billion in 2009 to $273 billion in 2010--a 20-percent increase in just 1 year alone! Whoever is elected President in 2012 will be the last President to preside over a U.S. economy on top of China's if we continue with our current policies, which, in large part are fueling our decline and China's rise. Make no mistake, this is the regrettable direction in which we are headed as long as we import more than we export, amass soaring deficits, consume more than we produce, and outsource thousands of jobs. Domestically, our Nation's $14.7 trillion debt is projected to reach 100 percent of GDP this year; unemployment has been hovering near or above 9 percent; and 22 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed. Indeed, we are experiencing the longest unemployment period in American history since data collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession. Manufacturing has also grown at the slowest pace in 2 years. The housing downturn is still plaguing the country, with no plausible end to foreclosures in sight. Home prices in March fell to their lowest level since 2002. Consumers, confronted with higher gas and food prices, are spending less on discretionary items. And in my home State of Maine wage and salary employment levels have fallen precipitously through December 2010, with job losses of 26,900, a 4.4-percent drop. Overall, employment numbers in my State have returned to year 1999 levels, erasing the economic gains of the past decade. At a time when Maine and our Nation are struggling to revive our lackluster economy--the worst since World War II, renewing and reforming TAA represents a central avenue we must take if we are to reinvigorate our workforce so that American enterprise is positioned to battle for customers with our counterparts in countries like China. TAA programs--such as TAA for Workers, TAA for Firms, and TAA for Farmers have proved invaluable to accelerating the adjustment process and expediting the means by which laid-off workers are able to rejoin the workforce and contribute to the bottom-line at a high level. TAA is crucial in providing Americans with the skills and assistance needed to meet this challenge. As President Kennedy said in 1962, TAA is ``a program to afford time for American initiative, American adaptability and American resiliency to assert themselves.'' Under the TAA for Workers Program, eligible beneficiaries in Maine-- such as laid-off pulp and paper manufacturers--participate full-time in customized and on-the-job training or pursue coursework at local colleges and universities to acquire the skills they need to reenter the workforce. As of the end of 2010, thousands of Mainers had been certified for TAA and reentered the workforce. Additionally, under the TAA for Farmers Program, hundreds of blueberry producers and lobstermen in my state, facing increased pressure from foreign products, have found the program's technical assistance and training extremely useful in retooling their businesses to ensure Maine's agriculture industry and fisherman remain among the best in the world. Likewise, the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center recently reported that 15 Maine companies have taken part in the TAA for Firms Program over the last several years. These companies have taken advantage of the program to reconfigure their business models, develop new strategies, and make other adjustments necessary to remain competitive in the international economy--benefiting a combined 1,120 Mainers employed by these firms. However, despite these irrefutable successes, I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will argue in favor of allowing TAA to expire. And they might argue that we should not be giving ``special treatment'' to individuals whose jobs have been affected by trade. Allowing this vital program to lapse would amount to a colossal missed opportunity not only for American workers but for our economy as well. When a Maine saw or paper mill closes and the orders it used to handle are filled by a Canadian or Chinese plant, that has a cascading affect across not just Maine's forestry industry but shipping businesses, our service sector, and the thousands of additional workers and rural communities that rely on this industry for their very survival. The fact is, losing one's job to trade is not equivalent to losing one's job because of technological advancements or economic adversity and downturn. The difference is that trade liberalization actions--such as implementing NAFTA or accepting China into the WTO--are the chosen policy of the U.S. Government--a path I would argue has often sacrificed manufacturing jobs in order to gain market access for other sectors of our economy. Consequently, our government is all the more obligated to aid our workers and communities hurt by foreign trade. To those who point out that there are inefficiencies associated with TAA, I agree that efforts at reform must reduce costs and eliminate waste. That is why this bill lowers program expenditures, includes cost-cutting provisions from areas such as case management and administrative expenses, and grants States greater discretion to manage the programs. Furthermore, the reforms made in this legislation require new performance measures, metrics, and accountability as a precondition for receiving training and benefits. In fact, the bill raises the standards by which applicants may receive waivers from training program requirements--eliminating many of the loopholes that previously could have been used to avoid participation in key job skill programs. Finally, I am pleased that the legislation before us maintains the expanded eligibility for service workers and those displaced by trade with non-FTA partners like China and India. And it maintains initiatives I have championed such as the health coverage tax credit-- all of which are vital components to helping sustain both workers and businesses and enable them to contribute to our economic recovery. Along with the enforcement of our existing trade laws, trade adjustment assistance must be a central pillar of our Nation's trade agenda. On February 8 I sent a letter to the Senate's leadership urging that they work with me to secure a long-term reauthorization of TAA so that families in Maine and across the U.S. are prepared for new employment opportunities. Unfortunately, as so often seems to be the case in the Senate, action on this job creation package has been delayed for far too long--over 7 months since I sent my letter. Congress still has an opportunity to overcome this legislative inertia in order to benefit U.S. industries that have been devastated by foreign imports. American businesses and their employees are doing their part--Congress must do likewise.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Safeguarding Disaster Funding Act of 2011, which I am introducing along with Senator Brown from Massachusetts. This legislation would amend the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Control Act to require the President to provide a more comprehensive view of disaster funding in his annual budget request. Our bill would ensure that the true cost of disaster assistance is reflected in the President's budget, by requiring that Presidents' annual budget requests for disaster programs include funding levels equal to the average amount provided annually over the previous ten years, excluding the highest and lowest years, to account for years with unusually high or low disaster activity. As disaster funding is already considered ``no-year'' money, unused monies would carry over to support years where additional funds are required. The status quo of Congress providing emergency appropriations to support these efforts, rather than including reasonable estimates, based on past disaster activity trends, is fiscally irresponsible. We should be working with the Administration to fund the necessary and appropriate activities of the Federal government, including disaster assistance. Responsible budgeting for disasters is the right thing to do for the victims of devastation, as the vivid images of the damage from Hurricane Irene have reminded us. Hurricane Irene caused more than 4.5 million homes and businesses along the East Coast to lose power, including nearly 185,000 in my home State of Maine, which suffered flooding and washed out bridges in the Western portion of the state. But now that the winds and rain have subsided, our cities and towns must rebuild from the devastation. With the Federal Emergency Management Agency's funding currently running unnecessarily low, they now must work on an ``immediate needs funding'' basis, meaning that non-emergency recovery projects are put on hold. Support of natural disaster recovery should not be stalled by the need for Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. While we cannot completely predict the number or nature of natural disasters, we do know that these events occur and cause massive damage. Policymakers cannot continue to play with the livelihoods of recovering Americans; assurances must be made that their recovery is facilitated through current Federal disaster recovery programs. The Safeguarding Disaster Funding Act of 2011 will ensure that the President properly accounts for disaster spending. By basing the President's budget request for disaster funding on a ten-year average, and excluding the highs and the lows, we are assuring that funds are neither overextended nor falsely underestimated. In these hard economic times, Congress must promote fiscal responsibility while ensuring that those areas struck by disasters are able to access the funds needed to quickly rebuild. I hope that my fellow colleagues will support this bill. In the wake of recent disasters it is readily apparent that we must plan better for these events.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Safeguarding Disaster Funding Act of 2011, which I am introducing along with Senator Brown from Massachusetts. This legislation would amend the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Control Act to require the President to provide a more comprehensive view of disaster funding in his annual budget request. Our bill would ensure that the true cost of disaster assistance is reflected in the President's budget, by requiring that Presidents' annual budget requests for disaster programs include funding levels equal to the average amount provided annually over the previous ten years, excluding the highest and lowest years, to account for years with unusually high or low disaster activity. As disaster funding is already considered ``no-year'' money, unused monies would carry over to support years where additional funds are required. The status quo of Congress providing emergency appropriations to support these efforts, rather than including reasonable estimates, based on past disaster activity trends, is fiscally irresponsible. We should be working with the Administration to fund the necessary and appropriate activities of the Federal government, including disaster assistance. Responsible budgeting for disasters is the right thing to do for the victims of devastation, as the vivid images of the damage from Hurricane Irene have reminded us. Hurricane Irene caused more than 4.5 million homes and businesses along the East Coast to lose power, including nearly 185,000 in my home State of Maine, which suffered flooding and washed out bridges in the Western portion of the state. But now that the winds and rain have subsided, our cities and towns must rebuild from the devastation. With the Federal Emergency Management Agency's funding currently running unnecessarily low, they now must work on an ``immediate needs funding'' basis, meaning that non-emergency recovery projects are put on hold. Support of natural disaster recovery should not be stalled by the need for Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. While we cannot completely predict the number or nature of natural disasters, we do know that these events occur and cause massive damage. Policymakers cannot continue to play with the livelihoods of recovering Americans; assurances must be made that their recovery is facilitated through current Federal disaster recovery programs. The Safeguarding Disaster Funding Act of 2011 will ensure that the President properly accounts for disaster spending. By basing the President's budget request for disaster funding on a ten-year average, and excluding the highs and the lows, we are assuring that funds are neither overextended nor falsely underestimated. In these hard economic times, Congress must promote fiscal responsibility while ensuring that those areas struck by disasters are able to access the funds needed to quickly rebuild. I hope that my fellow colleagues will support this bill. In the wake of recent disasters it is readily apparent that we must plan better for these events.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today on this most moving and memorable of occasions after we as a nation joined together to mark the solemn 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Throughout my home State of Maine and across this great land, Americans are uniting as one nation indivisible as we pause to remember with the heaviest of hearts the tragedy that befell our nation 10 years ago--a morning that changed America--and Americans--forever. We are all a different people in America--no matter our faith or ancestry--as a result of the horrific events on 9/11 that are ingrained upon the landscape of our consciousness for all time. We all know where we were and what we were doing at the precise time they happened. As many of us remember the assassination of President Kennedy, and some Pearl Harbor, our children will remember this day. As we recall, that morning began with such remarkable blue skies, but ended with a Nation in mourning and stunned disbelief. In Washington, DC, I watched the images along with the rest of the world. Later, as the Sun set over the National Mall--still capped by smoke billowing from the wound in the side of the Pentagon--I will never forget gathering with my colleagues in the House and Senate on the Capitol steps to sing ``God Bless America.'' We sang to send a message to the country and to the world that we would never be deterred--that freedom would never be crushed by the blunt and remorseless instruments of terror. The notes of ``God Bless America'' still reverberate, the resilience we recaptured as a country remains pressed upon our national psyche, and the memory of the inspirational sacrifices of so many heroic Americans who perished that morning will forever have a home in our hearts and our prayers. On this September 11 as in all that have preceded it, we mourn the loss of those eight individuals from Maine who were taken from us all too soon--Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline Norton, Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. We remember the heroic acts of valor that will always distinguish the men and women of 115 different nations who went to work that day, or boarded a plane, or rushed to the aid of strangers whose lives they believed were as vital as their own--and never returned home. If 9/11 was a snapshot of horror, it also became a portrait of consummate humanity. If it laid bare the unimaginable cruelties of which humankind is capable, it also etched forever within our minds the heights to which the human spirit can rise--even and especially in the face of mortality. Each had a soul, and having visited Ground Zero in the aftermath, I can tell you their presence still triumphed over the twisted destruction--and it always will. We recall that during one of the darkest days in our Nation's extraordinary and storied history, we also witnessed our Nation's mettle and solidarity, the inexhaustible courage and undaunted bravery that provided us with boundless inspiration and hope that sustained us then and inspires us today. And nowhere was that more evident than with the first responders who, in the face of unspeakable adversity and peril, heroically ran toward the very dangers others were desperately trying to escape, placing their lives in harm's way in the most courageous and valiant of endeavors to save others without regard for their own safety. As Americans, we are awed by the noble examples of courage and selflessness that emerged. When the alarm went off in fire stations across New York, firefighters were changing shifts. If they were on the way home, they turned around. If they were finishing up at the firehouse, getting ready to leave, they stayed. Some were retired-- veterans already at home--and they reported in. Many were to find themselves climbing higher and higher in those great silver towers toward a fate that must have become clearer with every step. Their valiant service and sacrifice are also a vivid reminder of the remarkable men and women exceptional enough to don our country's uniform to serve and defend our nation. Whether on our shores or soil here at home or around the globe, their steadfast sense of duty and love of country are an inspiration to us all, their commitment fortifies our will, and their professionalism steadies our hands in an uncertain world. As I gathered with Mainers across our State, I could not help but feel that inescapable, palpable sense of patriotism that binds us all together as Americans. It is also, I believe, a continuation of the heightened love of country all of us experienced when our Nation's bravest and finest--in this case our Navy SEALs--achieved what Americas detractors said was unachievable. They triumphantly rid the world of public enemy number one, and brought justice to the evil incarnate that was Osama bin Laden. In speaking of bin Laden, I have often sounded the refrain that you can run but you cannot hide. Well, thanks to the combined might of our military, intelligence, and counter-terrorism professionals, the message sent to the terrorists of the world with the death of Osama bin Laden is that America will prevail no matter how long it takes, whatever it takes, no matter where you are. Though justice was finally rendered, the unending pain of loved ones lost does not ease with the passing of years, and yet out of these atrocities emerged heroes who were then and will forever be shining testaments to the very best of who we are as a nation. And so, today, we memorialize those whose lives were stilled on September 11, and at the same time, we cannot help but extol the courage and indomitable spirit they exhibited. It was an unmistakable message to the world that we would never be deterred--that our freedoms could never be crushed by the cowardly instruments of terror that are no match against a resilient people certain in the knowledge that good ultimately triumphs over evil. What better symbol could there be of our mettle as a people than the historic National 9/11 Flag initiative. Americans across our country are stitching together the tattered remnants of one of the largest flags that flew over the wreckage at Ground Zero. When our beloved banner of freedom arrived at the U.S. Capitol on July 14, I cannot begin to convey the sense of honor and privilege I experienced in contributing to its restoration. And to share in this event with first responders, 9/11 families, and veterans made this moment one I will treasure, always. This expression of love for our homeland speaks to the inescapable belief that our strength as a nation has always emanated not from Washington, but from the people themselves--from tireless patriots of their own volition performing the most extraordinary of deeds. Patriots like the exemplary Freeport Flag Ladies--Elaine Greene, Carmen Footer, and JoAnn Miller, who have waved American flags on Main Street every Tuesday morning, rain, snow, or shine, since 9-11 in tribute to those who have sacrificed for all of us--our brave servicemen and women and our first responders. It was the highest of honors for me to join them early Sunday morning on Main Street in Freeport to wave flags on the 10th anniversary. Amid the trials and tribulations that this date in our history evokes, we take solace in the sacred truth that none of us grieves alone--that there are no strangers among us, only Americans. Indeed, out of the rubble rose our resolve, out of despair grew our determination, and out of the hate that was perpetrated upon us proudly stood our humanity. And so, we venerate the American spirit that is stronger than stone and mortar, tougher than steel and glass, and more permanent than any pain or suffering that can be inflicted upon us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, there are small businesses in cities and town across America that are local landmarks for a variety of reasons--whether they serve exceptional food, create a fun atmosphere, or possess a unique character. One such small business, DiMillo's Floating Restaurant in Maine's largest coastal city of Portland, enjoys all of these traits, and has been a community favorite since opening its doors in its current location in 1982. Today I commend DiMillo's for its remarkable achievements and determined resilience, and to highlight its remarkable story. DiMillo's restaurant began serving some of Portland's favorite meals in 1982 after many reinventions of creator Tony DiMillo's dream. Tony opened his first restaurant, Anthony's, on Fore Street in 1954. After two relocations of the restaurant, he settled on changing his company's name to that of his last name, and moved the restaurant to Portland's scenic waterfront after purchasing the abandoned Long Wharf. Tony quickly evolved his business from a single restaurant to a multi faceted empire by creating DiMillo's Marina and eventually DiMillo's Yacht Sales, all on the newly renovated wharf. The flagship of the DiMillo spirit lies in DiMillo's Floating Restaurant, a refurbished car ferry that originally ran between Delaware and New Jersey. By the time the DiMillo family purchased the vessel in 1980, its fate was sealed as a popular landmark of the Portland waterfront. DiMillo's Floating Restaurant is one of the largest converted ferries of its kind and is able to accommodate over 600 guests at any given time. The restaurant offers patrons a wide variety of the Gulf of Maine's bounty, from lobsters and haddock to scallops and clams. In homage to the family's Italian ancestry, DiMillo's also offers a number of both unique and classic Italian dishes, from seafood scampi to ricotta meatballs. Like so many small Maine businesses, DiMillo's has been forced to adapt to the persistent economic downturn, as well as today's rising energy costs. Recently, the company announced that it will be raising a 35-foot wind turbine to help cut the cost of the electrical needs of the business. As part of their movement towards sustainability, DiMillo's has also pledged to consider adding solar panels to its energy future. It is with great pride that I acknowledge the successes of small, family-owned businesses, because these are the firms that help maintain the character and virtue of Main Street America. The long-term success and longevity of DiMillo's Restaurant and the entire DiMillo family is a byproduct of strong work ethic, responsive customer service, and a high level of quality. The motto of the DiMillo family has always been, ``A tradition of excellence for generations to come.'' And these words continue to ring true today, whether it is through their efforts at the restaurant, the marina, or in their yacht sales business. DiMillo's is an excellent example of our nation's unique and celebrated entrepreneurial spirit. I congratulate everyone in the DiMillo's businesses for their resilience and dedication to the community of Portland, and wish them many years of continued success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 365, the legislative vehicle for the debt limit increase. Given the $14.3 trillion national debt, the $1.6 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, and the unrestrained and skyrocketing growth of Government programs and services, this vote commences the debate that will lead our Government to reevaluate priorities and examine its spending with a critical eye. Today's vote was critical to maintaining our country's financial credibility, and it was the first step in what will be many to rein in the U.S. Government's out-of-control spending. This bill reduces current spending, caps future spending, and controls previously unrestrained Government budgets over the next decade, while also protecting critical Social Security benefits. Just weeks ago, the United States was warned it would lose its stellar AAA credit rating on two grounds: if Washington did nothing to address its debt and deficit spending, and if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling, thus triggering a default. This vote addresses both issues by, for the first time in history, requiring spending reductions equal or greater to the amount the debt ceiling is raised. That is indeed a first, positive step toward making our Government accountable to its people. This action was critically important to every family in America. A default would have resulted in a downgrade in our Nation's credit rating and triggered higher interest rates for borrowing at all levels, from the Federal Government, to states and municipalities, to every American who has a mortgage, a car loan, a student loan, or a credit card. Failure to pass this bill would have put retirement funds at risk at a time when seniors are looking for financial stability and counting on predictability in their retirement income. While no one can predict how the ratings agencies will react to this legislation, it at least signals that our country is serious about getting its financial situation in order. In addition, it requires Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which is a commonsense reform I have championed since I came to Congress. Mandating the Federal Government to do what nearly every State legislature is already required to achieve sends a message to every American and the world that Washington finally gets it, and at last understands the consequences of failing to control spending. Let there be no mistake--we can no longer accept budgets that compromise our economic growth, living standards, or opportunities that have been a hallmark of America's greatness. Though this agreement is historic, I have grave concerns about the supercommittee established by this legislation. Creating a 12-person Washington commission to do the job of 535 elected representatives is another indication of a broken political system in dire need of repair. I will work tirelessly to bring accountability, reason, and transparency to the decisions this supercommittee makes and presents to Congress for an up-or-down vote. This legislation initially exempts Social Security, Medicaid, and veterans programs from spending cuts. After the initial cuts are implemented, I am deeply concerned that the supercommittee could seek savings from Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. The committee has to recommend solid recommendations that Congress must act upon in order to avoid automatic cuts designed to incentivize Congress to fulfill this responsibility. Indeed, if the committee's recommendations are not adopted by Congress, automatic cuts to Medicare providers and defense spending could go into effect while Medicaid would be exempt. For these reasons, I will be especially vigilant about the work of the supercommittee to ensure that its recommendations achieve an equitable outcome. Moreover, this bill should have included a pro-growth strategy for our economy to address our cumbersome Tax Code, overly onerous and inefficient regulatory scheme, and a mountain of new health care costs. I have long advocated for a major overhaul of our Tax Code, regulatory reform, and a pro-jobs agenda. Indeed, throughout this year I have repeatedly called on our President and this Congress to focus with laser-like precision on jobs and the economy. Once again, I call on the President and the Congress to immediately turn to focus on concrete measures that will actually put Americans back to work. Indisputably, debt and deficits are a dangerous combination at a time when we are experiencing an unprecedented period of long-term unemployment with more than 22 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, and another 2.2 million who want a job, but are so discouraged they stopped looking for work altogether. In the 29 months since President Obama took office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months, and actually increased to 9.2 percent in June. Manufacturing grew at the slowest pace in 2 years in July. The housing downturn is worsening, with no plausible end to foreclosures in sight. Home prices in March fell to their lowest level since 2002. Consumers, confronted with higher gas and food prices, are spending less on discretionary items. And yet at a moment when every dollar Government spends should be wisely dedicated to job creation to return us on the path to prosperity, we are forced to commit an astounding $200 billion per year just to service our debt. The cost of net interest alone will more than double in the next 10 years to reach nearly $1 trillion per year in 2021. In fact, the CBO's most recent long-term outlook states that by 2035 interest costs on our Nation's debt would reach 9 percent of GDP, more than the U.S. currently spends on Social Security or Medicare. And if interest rates were just 1 percentage point higher per year, over 10 years the deficit would balloon by $1.3 trillion from increased costs to pay interest on our debt alone. It is abundantly clear that we can no longer afford to borrow money without a clear plan in place to rein in Federal spending and force the Government to live within its means. Today's legislation is the first step in that direction.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in cities and towns all across America, there are businesses that are synonymous with the communities they serve. Maine has historically been home to a number of these companies, from local paper mills to Bath Iron Works. In the Lewiston- Auburn region, Falcon Performance Footwear has been part of the fabric since 1963, producing high-quality shoes and boots for generations of Mainers and Americans. On Tuesday, August 23, Falcon Performance Footwear will be recognized by the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, with its 2011 Manufacturing Excellence Award. I commend Falcon for its fine work and congratulate the company on its recognition. Falcon Shoe Manufacturing Company got its start in 1963, when Ted Johanson opened the factory's doors at the Roy Continental Mill in Lewiston. Originally, Falcon produced children's shoes, but over time focused its efforts on manufacturing boots for a number of uses. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Falcon began implementing a number of forward-thinking and innovative processes, including the first in the shoe industry to utilize computerized stitching equipment, as well as the first direct-attach polyurethane outer sole for shoes in the country. The company was also the first to make Timberland boots. To provide the company with the ability to expand, Falcon moved from its longtime home in Lewiston to a larger location in the neighboring city of Auburn earlier this year. Today, Falcon's sole focus is on making reliable, sturdy, comfortable boots, particularly for consumers in labor-intensive jobs. The company produces a number of cutting-edge industrial boots, and in 2006 began working with Globe Firefighter Suits, a New Hampshire small business, to create a state-of-the-art boot for firefighters designed with an athletic shoe platform rather than a more rigid welted sole to provide added flexibility. Falcon added mining boots to its repertoire in 2009, which feature a type of leather that resists many of the salts and minerals frequently encountered by miners. Over the past decade, Falcon has worked with the Maine MEP to improve its efficiency and productivity, allowing the company to better compete in the global economy. As a result of this collaboration, Falcon has increased its productivity by 60 percent, retained over 50 jobs, increased its sales, and trained all of its employees in a number of advanced manufacturing techniques. I have long been a supporter of, and advocate for, the MEP program, and recognize the immense value of its services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers across the country. Indeed, as a result of their partnership with the Maine MEP over the past 5 years, clients have reported increased and retained sales over $368 million, $40.1 million in cost savings, and the creation or retention of over 2,500 jobs--or nearly 5 percent of Maine's manufacturing workforce. I commend Falcon for working with the Maine MEP to become a leaner, more efficient company that is poised for future success, and I am pleased to honor the company and its employees as it receives the Maine MEP's 2011 Manufacturing Excellence Award. Maine was once home to dozens of shoemakers and tanneries, which provided thousands of jobs and enormous benefits to the State's economy. But over time, foreign competition and rising costs have devastated the shoe industry across America. That is what makes Falcon Performance Footwear's story all the more remarkable. I thank everyone at Falcon for their hard work and endurance, and wish them continued success as they remain an icon in the Lewiston-Auburn communities.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Commercial Truck Safety Act of 2011 to address one of my top priorities, and one of my constituents' greatest concerns in recent years, keeping trucks on the Interstate Highway System whenever and wherever possible. Improving truck safety has been one of my key concerns for more than a decade. What seemed like a simple task so many years ago has become a long battle, fighting for common sense changes that would allow all trucks in Maine to use the Interstate system. In 2009, Senator Collins and I, and our colleagues from Vermont, were able to secure a one-year pilot program that allowed 100,000-pound trucks on Interstates in Maine. The program reinforced the need for a permanent change to the outdated and inconsistent regulations that govern the weight of trucks on our Interstate highways. During the 2009-2010 pilot program, 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 5 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 1-95 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 highway 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 decades ago. In the 122 miles between Hampden and Houlton, Maine, 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. The Commercial Truck Safety Act will allow states to petition the Secretary of Transportation for a waiver from current Interstate weight limits. The Secretary would have the authority to authorize a 3-year pilot program, during which time state engineers, highway users, and safety advocates would weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and report to the Secretary who could then set reasonable, permanent weight limits. The Secretary would authorize a 3-year pilot program within a state, and require the creation of a safety committee, composed of engineers, safety advocates, and highway users. This team would report to the Secretary on whether the pilot program should be made permanent, eliminating the need for individual States to come to Congress for special exemptions. Under my plan, only six-axle vehicles would be eligible to carry loads over 80,000 pounds. A 2000 Federal Highway Administration study noted that these trucks cause LESS fatigue on both rigid and flexible pavements. There is no question that allowing these vehicles on the Interstate will have safety, environmental, and efficiency benefits. A total of 27 States already have some type of permanent exemption, and 47 states allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a 100,000-pound truck from Gary, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, to Portland, Maine, you would be forced to unload the additional weight to continue on the Interstate in Maine, or travel through the state on local roads, needlessly raising the risk of an accident on a local road or street. Conversely, and inexplicably, you can drive a truck weighing 90,000 pounds all the way from Kansas City, MO to Seattle, WA, exclusively on the Interstate system. 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. Pulp and paper produced in Bucksport and Lincoln, Maine, are vital to the economic health of my State, but with the return to previous weight limits, Maine is at a significant disadvantage due to the higher cost of transportation caused by this fundamental inequity. Some of my constituents noted that the pilot program increased efficiency so appreciably, it was as if the factory had been moved 200 miles closer to the customer. While at first glance this may seem insignificant, we must not forget that diesel prices are well above $4.00 per gallon, and tractor trailers operate at approximately 6 miles per gallon. Not only will this bill save fuel and costs for shippers, it will reduce costs for states. A 2004 study commissioned by the Maine Department of Transportation indicates that a permanent change would reduce the state's pavement costs by more than $1 million per year. It would also cut bridge rehabilitation costs by more than $300,000 per year. It is critical that we maximize our current highway capacity, and ensure that freight movement is efficient and timely. The Commercial Truck Safety Act will provide states with the flexibility they need to improve freight mobility and increase safety on our highways. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and allow States to update truck weight limits that no longer enhance safety or boost our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Commercial Truck Safety Act of 2011 to address one of my top priorities, and one of my constituents' greatest concerns in recent years, keeping trucks on the Interstate Highway System whenever and wherever possible. Improving truck safety has been one of my key concerns for more than a decade. What seemed like a simple task so many years ago has become a long battle, fighting for common sense changes that would allow all trucks in Maine to use the Interstate system. In 2009, Senator Collins and I, and our colleagues from Vermont, were able to secure a one-year pilot program that allowed 100,000-pound trucks on Interstates in Maine. The program reinforced the need for a permanent change to the outdated and inconsistent regulations that govern the weight of trucks on our Interstate highways. During the 2009-2010 pilot program, 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 5 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 1-95 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 highway 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 decades ago. In the 122 miles between Hampden and Houlton, Maine, 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. The Commercial Truck Safety Act will allow states to petition the Secretary of Transportation for a waiver from current Interstate weight limits. The Secretary would have the authority to authorize a 3-year pilot program, during which time state engineers, highway users, and safety advocates would weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and report to the Secretary who could then set reasonable, permanent weight limits. The Secretary would authorize a 3-year pilot program within a state, and require the creation of a safety committee, composed of engineers, safety advocates, and highway users. This team would report to the Secretary on whether the pilot program should be made permanent, eliminating the need for individual States to come to Congress for special exemptions. Under my plan, only six-axle vehicles would be eligible to carry loads over 80,000 pounds. A 2000 Federal Highway Administration study noted that these trucks cause LESS fatigue on both rigid and flexible pavements. There is no question that allowing these vehicles on the Interstate will have safety, environmental, and efficiency benefits. A total of 27 States already have some type of permanent exemption, and 47 states allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a 100,000-pound truck from Gary, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, to Portland, Maine, you would be forced to unload the additional weight to continue on the Interstate in Maine, or travel through the state on local roads, needlessly raising the risk of an accident on a local road or street. Conversely, and inexplicably, you can drive a truck weighing 90,000 pounds all the way from Kansas City, MO to Seattle, WA, exclusively on the Interstate system. 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. Pulp and paper produced in Bucksport and Lincoln, Maine, are vital to the economic health of my State, but with the return to previous weight limits, Maine is at a significant disadvantage due to the higher cost of transportation caused by this fundamental inequity. Some of my constituents noted that the pilot program increased efficiency so appreciably, it was as if the factory had been moved 200 miles closer to the customer. While at first glance this may seem insignificant, we must not forget that diesel prices are well above $4.00 per gallon, and tractor trailers operate at approximately 6 miles per gallon. Not only will this bill save fuel and costs for shippers, it will reduce costs for states. A 2004 study commissioned by the Maine Department of Transportation indicates that a permanent change would reduce the state's pavement costs by more than $1 million per year. It would also cut bridge rehabilitation costs by more than $300,000 per year. It is critical that we maximize our current highway capacity, and ensure that freight movement is efficient and timely. The Commercial Truck Safety Act will provide states with the flexibility they need to improve freight mobility and increase safety on our highways. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and allow States to update truck weight limits that no longer enhance safety or boost our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Steve Levesque, the executive director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which is the entity charged with the transition of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station into a vibrant commercial center. Steve has been a longtime leader in economic development in the State of Maine, having previously served as commissioner of the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. His most recent efforts have earned him recognition from the Association of Defense Communities, which presented Steve with its Base Redevelopment Leadership Award last week at its annual conference in Norfolk, VA. An era came to an end on May 31 when the Brunswick Naval Air Station, also known as BNAS, was officially closed as an unfortunate casualty of the base realignment and closure process. As the executive director of the MRRA, Steve Levesque was charged with the unenviable task of overseeing the reuse of the 3,200-acre former air station. Many anticipated that the closure would be a devastating blow to the Midcoast economy, but under Steve's leadership the air station's closure has transformed into an exciting redevelopment project with much hope for the future. Always reluctant to accept credit for the successes at Brunswick Landing, Steve is always quick to laud the efforts of those around him. While the MRRA staff and board unquestionably embody the finest attributes of Maine's legendary work ethic, Steve's buoyant outlook, foresight, and true leadership capacity have undoubtedly accelerated the redevelopment of BNAS into Brunswick Landing, which is home to an ever-growing number of businesses focused on projects as diverse as aviation, advanced composites, and education. Tenants include both new and existing business from across the globe, including Kestrel Aircraft, Molnlycke Health Care, Southern Maine Community College, and Bowdoin College. Under Steve's leadership, there are presently 10 companies in the process of relocating to Brunswick Landing, and many other businesses are actively considering moving to the site because of the proactive efforts of Steve and his team at MRRA. There are 90 jobs associated with those 10 firms, and an additional 515 are projected. In April, Steve also oversaw the successful launch of Brunswick Executive Airport, and just over a month later hosted the first annual Brunswick International Fly-In for pilots from across the region and the entire country. In acknowledging Steve's commitment to Brunswick Landing with its prestigious Base Redevelopment Leadership Award, the Association of Defense Communities noted that ``[m]uch of the success so far in promoting the base's redevelopment can be attributed to Levesque's strong working relationship with the Navy, the state's congressional delegation, the governor's office, the legislature, local officials and the business community.'' I can attest that Steve has been a reliable partner and a tremendous asset to the redevelopment effort as he has labored tirelessly to ensure that the Midcoast region is an attractive locale for businesses seeking to open, expand, and grow. Steve exemplifies the very best of Maine. Aside from his professional duties, he has been active in the local community as the founder of the Maine Moose Junior Hockey team. From 2006 until 2010, Steve served as the president and general manager of the Maine Moose, sharing his love of hockey with kids from across the State. Steve's passion for and commitment to public service and the people of Maine is truly commendable. I have long respected Steve Levesque for his intelligence, confidence, and ability to accomplish great things. At a time when job creation and economic growth are paramount to revitalizing midcoast Maine's economy, I know no one more suited to the task than Steve Levesque. I thank Steve for his incredible work thus far, and wish him success as he continues his efforts to construct Maine's Center for Innovation at Brunswick Landing.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to table the motion to proceed to H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011. At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, the Federal Government's record of fiscal recklessness proves we must work to guarantee fiscal responsibility not just for our time, but for all time. In that light, I believe it deserves debate and an open process that would allow for changes and improvements so we can ultimately pass a measure ensuring we are never again confronted with a vote to raise our Nation's debt ceiling. And I am therefore deeply disappointed and troubled that the majority in the Senate is not permitting us to proceed to any further discussion or votes on this bill. To achieve that goal, an indispensible element of the cut, cap, and balance bill is the balanced budget amendment--and I have been a champion of balanced budget amendments throughout my tenure. And in fact, this legislation before us represents the one and only opportunity we will likely have as we lead up to the debt ceiling deadline to consider and pass just such an amendment. Given our historic $14.3 trillion national debt, the record $1.6 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, and the unrestrained and skyrocketing growth of government programs and services, we have little choice but to seriously and thoroughly debate measures to bring certainty and solutions to our broken budget process. We must commence a process that will force our government to reevaluate priorities and live within its means. Indeed, this is a threshold moment in our Nation's history to determine precisely what kind of nation we want to be. Will our fiscal future be held hostage to interests overseas, threatening both our national and economic security? Will we cede our destiny to countries like China, which already holds approximately one-fifth of our gross debt? Or will we seize the financial reins, pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and reclaim our future? Given what is at stake and Congress's perpetual disregard for fiscal responsibility, frankly, the burden is squarely upon the opponents of this resolution to justify how business as usual is sustainable for our Nation. Indeed, last week the President asserted that, ``we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' Well, if that were true, if such an amendment isn't required for us to do our jobs, why then do we find ourselves wallowing in this economic morass? If Congress actually possessed the capacity to forestall skyrocketing debt of its own volition, why are we mired in a major debt crisis? So let us not be confused as we hear all of the usual diversionary excuses why this amendment shouldn't pass. And having cosponsored a balanced budget amendment 18 times since my very first days in Congress, and having made statements in favor of it 35 times on the Senate and House floor, believe me, I could recite them all by rote-- how a balanced budget amendment will be overly restrictive, spending reductions too substantial, and that other measures would be equally effective without changing our Constitution. I recall during a House floor debate in 1992, colleagues asked: What if appropriations exceed estimated revenues? What if the President and Congress underestimate the amount of federal revenues in a fiscal year? What if it requires budgetary adjustments as a result of a contracting economy, or inaccurate estimates? And my response then was the same as it is now--welcome to the real world! That is what families, businesses and frankly, 49 States that have adopted balanced budget requirements confront day in and day out. State governors and legislators cannot leave their Capitols if their budgets aren't balanced and the U.S. Congress should be no different. Instead, we have not only a fiscal gap in Washington but a shameful imbalance between the trust the American people have placed in us, and the responsibilities we must carry out if we are to demonstrate worthiness of that trust. The demonstrable reality is that, absent a permanent mechanism that forces the Federal Government to set and fulfill its fiscal priorities, Congress will blithely continue its wayward practices. Indeed, the reason many lawmakers don't want a balanced budget amendment is the exact reason why it's essential--and that is to permanently end the types of legislative trickery that have brought our country to the edge of a fiscal chasm. The facts speak for themselves. On March 4, 1997, when the balanced budget amendment failed to pass in the Senate by one vote, our gross debt was $5.36 trillion, a number we rightly all found staggering! But apparently it wasn't staggering enough, as the abysmal track record following 1997 dramatically demonstrates. In 1999, just 2 years after that fateful vote in which the balanced budget amendment failed to pass, the debt rose to $5.6 trillion. By 2002--it was $6 trillion. In 2004--$7 trillion. In 2006--$8 trillion. By 2009--it rose to $11 trillion, and last year to $13.5 trillion. The bottom line is that from 1997 to 2011, the national debt has almost tripled. Tripled--to an unprecedented $14.3 trillion. And now we are asked to raise the ceiling again to $16.5 trillion. Our government has balanced its budget only five times in half a century. Five times. Our 1997 deficit was $22 billion; this year's is projected to be 73 times as high, at $1.6 trillion. Does anyone know any families out there in America who are voluntarily spending 73 times what they spent in 1997? Families across the country have been paying down their credit cards. They are facing reality, while Congress continues to binge-spend, unabated. In 1992, I said on the House floor that, ``we have no way of knowing how bad things might get if we continue without the balanced budget amendment.'' Well, regrettably, now we do know, and the situation is dire as our outstanding debt now projected to reach 100 percent of GDP this year--which some economists have labeled an ``economic danger zone.'' In fact, economists report that gross debt levels above 90 percent of GDP slow economic growth by 1 percent per year, resulting in approximately 1 million jobs lost. So I defy anyone to explain how we could have amassed these mind-numbing levels of debt relative to our GDP, and yet a balanced budget amendment is not a necessity. We have tried every statutory structure possible yet nothing we have implemented has withstood the test of time, circumvention, or clever gimmickry to successfully and consistently bind both the House and the Senate to provide continuity from Congress to Congress, to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Nothing. And no one can disavow the consequences of this lack of self-imposed accountability, which has engendered shockingly deficient oversight and review of our spending and Federal programs, both those already existing, and those proposed. As a result, we continue to pile on program after program with impunity. We have witnessed the positive effects of statutory limits with past budget enforcement mechanisms such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that saved upward of $700 billion, and those measures led to 4 years of surpluses. But we allowed them to lapse, to wither on the legislative vine, and that has led us directly to the ``wild west'' mentality of today in which our entire budget and appropriations processes have virtually disintegrated. 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--1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2011-- that all ended with large, spendthrift, omnibus appropriations 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, almost resulting in a shutdown of the Federal Government in April 2011. We have had 87 continuing resolutions in the past 14 fiscal years and passed not even a single one of the 12 individual appropriations bills for the current fiscal year. This tacit acceptance of 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. It is certainly not as though we lack the time to fulfill our legal requirement to complete budgets by April 15--and just ask the American people if they aren't required to meet their tax filing deadline on April 15! In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that from January 5, 2011, through July 1, 2011, the Senate has been in session for 541 Hours, 243 hours of which have been spent in Morning Business--that is 45 percent of our time spent in nonlegislative activity. We couldn't have voted on a budget resolution? No wonder only 18 percent of the country believes Congress is doing its job, which only makes me wonder--who exactly are those 18 percent? Even when we had the historic opportunity of 4 consecutive years of Federal surpluses beginning in 1998, we squandered it with a deplorable lack of foresight. In 2001, the last year of surpluses when our debt was $5.8 trillion, I introduced a legislative trigger mechanism to link long-term Federal budget surplus reductions with actual budgetary outcomes and later led a bipartisan, bicameral group with Senator Bayh to offer a subsequent amendment, recognizing that federal surplus projections were merely that--projections. Yet both measures were dismissed and derided. And what has been the result? 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 three consecutive years. We are now borrowing roughly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. The reality could not be more stark--the balanced budget amendment is the only vehicle before us that will guarantee that a balanced budget will be the rule, rather than the exception--because it will compel Congress, through the ultimate authority of the Constitution--to return to the regimentation and discipline of the budget and appropriations processes, and thereby force the government to establish priorities and abide by those priorities. To paraphrase a statement I made during one particular balanced budget debate in the House, the Constitution is not for window dressing. It is not to score political points for any particular party. It is not for more games and gimmicks--and in fact, as I have stated many times, if it were a gimmick Congress would have passed it long ago! Rather, the purpose is to protect current and future generations from the crushing weight of ever-escalating debt that threatens America's security and our very way of life. There should be no mistake--debt and deficits are always a dangerous combination, and especially at a time when we are experiencing an unprecedented period of long-term unemployment with more than 22 million Americans unemployed or underemployed, and another 2.2 million who want a job, but are so discouraged they stopped looking for work altogether. Consider that, in the 29 months since President Obama took office, unemployment has dipped below 9 percent for only 5 months, and actually increased to 9.2 percent in June. And yet at a moment when every dollar government spends should be wisely dedicated to job creation to return us on the path to prosperity, we are forced to commit an astounding $200 billion per year just to service our debt. The cost of net interest alone will more than triple in the next 10 years to reach nearly $1 trillion per year in 2021. In fact, the CBO's most recent long-term outlook states that by 2035 interest costs on our Nation's debt would reach 9 percent of GDP, more than the U.S. currently spends on Social Security or Medicare! And if interest rates were just one percentage point higher per year, over ten years the deficit would balloon by $1.3 trillion from increased costs. Ironically, the conversations in Washington are about how the markets will react if we do not raise the debt ceiling, but the markets are already reacting. Standard & Poor's recently downgraded the Nation's outlook from ``stable'' to ``negative,'' Moody's warned that our ``AAA'' rating could be lost if we do not reduce deficit spending, and large funds like PIMCO are divesting holdings of U.S. bonds. And let's be perfectly clear--it is not only our economy that may suffer should we dive into the fiscal abyss. When ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, identifies the national debt as the single biggest threat to our national security--that ought to compel us to stand up and take notice. Yet in the absence of a balanced budget amendment, any fiscal foothold we may gain with measures implemented in this Congress could be summarily reversed by subsequent Congresses--whereas, a balanced budget amendment would establish an indissoluble contract with future generations that would cement fiscal responsibility in perpetuity. So let us be unambiguous what this debate is about. It is a fundamental disagreement between those who are concerned about our future economic standards, and those who are willing to erode the economic opportunities that have become the very hallmark of the American dream. You see, the dirty little secret is that those who oppose a balanced budget amendment don't want their hands tied . . . they don't want the fiscal restraints. Well, to them I say, this is America--can't we do better? Well, we can do better, and we must--and therefore, I will vote to proceed with this legislation. Critically, it contains a provision that exempts Medicare, Social Security, and veterans benefits from the spending caps. At the same time, I recognize it is not a perfect bill. In fact, again I believe there should be a full and open debate during which members can offer amendments to improve this legislation and I regret that the majority here in the Senate will preclude that possibility. I can foresee a number of improvements I would propose, including the addition of a ``pay-for'' title in the legislation that would provide for additional, mandatory savings including eliminating ethanol subsidies and direct agricultural payments to high-income farmers, and rescinding unspent stimulus and TARP funds, that could be better utilized within Medicare and Medicaid. And we must also enact straightforward budget policy reforms so that Congress no longer relies on accounting gimmicks. These are but a number of the improvements that would save billions of dollars and put our nation on a path toward fiscal responsibility. Again, the central question before us is as old as the founding of our great republic--and that is, what kind of nation do we want to be? That was the same question that historian David McCullough addressed years ago before group of legislators when he discussed the milestones achieved by Congress when leaders worked together. ``Think what your institution has achieved,'' he observed. ``It was Congress that created the Homestead Act. It was Congress that ended slavery. It was Congress that ended child labor. It was Congress that built the Panama Canal, the railroads and the Interstate System. It was Congress that created Social Security. It was Congress that passed the Voting Rights Act. It was Congress that sent Lewis and Clark to the West, and sent us on voyages to the moon.'' And some acts of Congress, he pointed out, like the Marshall plan and lend lease, were achieved under crisis conditions. I honestly believe that this spirit of accomplishment can be re- captured--and what could be a more fundamental place to start than with the future fiscal health of our Nation? We can either bring disrepute upon ourselves by continuing to mortgage our future to cover the fiscal offenses of today or we can rise to the occasion, meet our moral responsibility, and bequeath the generations to come a nation unencumbered by the shackles of perpetual debt. The choice is ours, and history awaits our answer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is always devastating when a business that has been part of the fabric of a local community closes, whether it is the drycleaner, the candy shop, or the grocery store. That was the case with the Way Way Store in Saco, ME, which closed its doors 8 years ago after nearly 80 years in business. However, due to the entrepreneurial spirit of a local couple, the Way Way Store has recently reopened, reinstating the original store's dedication to offering personal service and affordable products. Today I commend the Way Way Store for its grand reopening and discuss its remarkable history. The Way Way Store was originally opened in the southern Maine town of Saco in the late 1920s by the Cousens family. Eugene Cousens constructed the store from handmade concrete blocks, an effort that resulted in the building being placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the building's exterior retains its original red-and-white color scheme, and the original cash register still sits atop the counter. Through the 1940s, the Way Way Store was essentially a rest stop for travelers as it offered gasoline, clothing, outhouses, and food. Over time, the Way Way Store began to focus on selling candy and other foods and quickly became a popular local establishment. Like many other established small businesses, the Way Way Store places a strong emphasis on family. The Cousens family owned the Way Way Store from the time that it opened until Peggy Tyrell and Catherine Cousens decided to close the store in 2003. Eight years later, Peter Scontras, a retired historian and schoolteacher, and his wife Bridget reopened the store last month to much acclaim, thus restoring a local landmark. They remain determined to honor the legacy that the Cousens left behind while adapting to ensure the store's success. The Way Way Store has been something of an institution in Saco, and the reopening has provoked a strong positive response in the town. People who frequented the Way Way Store before it closed in 2003 are coming back to take in the atmosphere that harkens back to the mid-20th century and to enjoy the wide range of sweets that the store offers. By offering a multitude of traditional favorites like penny-candy and employing original ideas like a takeout ice cream window, the Scontras family has proved to be shrewd business owners, and the new Way Way Store has endeared itself to yet another generation of Mainers. As many specialty shops fall to the wayside due to competition from larger chains, it is inspiring to see a small business rediscover success and continue its contribution to the local economy. People in the Saco area have expressed their gratitude to Mr. and Mrs. Scontras for reinvigorating a true gem in York County. I join them in thanking the Scontras family for the risk they have taken in opening a small business in this tumultuous economy and commend them on their hard work and dedication to their customers and to the Way Way Store's grand tradition.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in remembrance of the disastrous invasion of Turkish armed forces into the Republic of Cyprus. On this day, 37 years ago, Turkish soldiers began the forcible expulsion of approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from the island's northern territory. It is in support of the liberty and human dignity of those evicted that I stand to address my colleagues today. At this moment, there are more than 43,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus-- that is roughly one Turkish solider for every two Turkish Cypriots. And regrettably, their presence continues to perpetuate the usurpation, occupation, and destruction of Greek Cypriot-owned property. So too continues the egregious desecration of Greek Orthodox churches and religious artifacts that are not only sacred to millions of faithful believers, but also beautiful and irreplaceable historic sites and objects of inherent cultural value to all of humanity. Since 1974, more than 75 resolutions have been adopted by the United Nations Security Council calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus and the return of refugees to their homes and properties. Yet despite 37 frustrating years of diplomatic stops and starts, a procession of U.N. special representatives and envoys, and untold hours of negotiations, Turkey continues to occupy this region in complete violation of international law. It is imperative that Turkey withdraw its forces and at long last concede that the Cyprus question is one that can only be resolved through mutual agreement on a solution, not the imposition of one. In this way, Turkey must contribute practically and substantially to the negotiating effort and embrace in concrete terms a reunified and prosperous Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can live together in peace. As a fellow democracy, the Republic of Cyprus shares basic values with the United States and has remained a close friend and ally for many years. Indeed, the U.S.-Cyprus friendship remains an anchor of American foreign policy in this region. We must, in our solemn role as a nation that champions human rights and adherence to the rule of law, stand with Cypriots to bring peace, stability, and prosperity to their island. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Cyprus settlement process with the goal of finding a fair and lasting agreement for the benefit of all Cypriots.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, while the news these days all too often highlights the negatives in our economy, such as the plight of a high unemployment rate and weak growth, we should also be reminded that some people are making the best of a bad economy and taking a risk by starting new businesses. One couple in downeast Maine has made the incredible transition from operating a boatbuilding shop to starting a new restaurant all in the course of less than a decade. Instead of complaining about the calamitous economic times, they did something to continue their passion of entrepreneurship. That is why today I wish to honor the Smoky Toast Cafe located in Jonesboro, which opened last year to much acclaim. Tracy Watts and William Faulkingham started their boat-finishing business, Jonesboro Custom Finish Shop, nearly a decade ago. During the booming economy of the early 2000s, business was good and their docks were never dry, with customers constantly bringing in boats for finishing and renovations. The company finished a variety of watercraft, ranging from lobster boats and commercial vessels to canoes and sport fishing boats. With orders coming in on a regular basis, William and Tracy never lacked for work. Regrettably, that all changed when the economic downturn struck late last decade, as thousands of small businesses in Maine and the rest of the country saw demand slack off and the need for their services diminish. But instead of waiting around for the economic winds to shift, the energetic founders of this boatbuilding business changed course altogether and found a new calling--off the water--in the restaurant industry. Tracy and William built the Smoky Toast Cafe on the same land where Jonesboro Custom Boats had previously operated. Using the skills they had honed over time William's handiness and Tracy's cooking--they started over from scratch. Now more than a year into this new endeavor, the business is off to a strong start. After all, no matter how hard times may be, quality food always sells. But William and Tracy also know that starting a new business in this climate will take even more hard work. They have built a loyal following among the downeast community of fishermen and harvesters, and open their doors at 5 a.m. to welcome these dedicated individuals with hearty breakfasts and fresh baked muffins and breads. The Smoky Toast Cafe is also open for lunch, offering standard favorites as well as Maine seafood dishes. The restaurant is also utilizing social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to promote itself and bring in new customers, by posting daily specials and company news items. Small businesses like the Smoky Toast Cafe are the main generators of jobs and economic growth in this country and will be the drivers of our recovery. The commitment to entrepreneurship displayed by Tracy and William is a remarkable example to aspiring business owners who are considering whether or not to take the risk in starting their own company. I commend William and Tracy for their tremendous efforts and wish them many successful years of business.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our economy relies on small businesses, particularly small, family-owned firms that have been in operation for generation after generation. One such small business, Morning Glory Natural Foods in Brunswick, will be celebrating its ``30 Years on Maine Street'' on July 15, complete with festivities for the whole community. Today I wish to commend Morning Glory Natural Foods for its remarkable achievement. Morning Glory Natural Foods opened its doors in May of 1981, proudly serving the mid-coast community of Brunswick with fresh, local, and organic products--from delicious local produce to organic cotton clothing, and everything in between. Since then, the firm has grown to incorporate dozens of other Maine-made products in its catalogue of goods that truly exemplify the virtues of a local economic leader. Like so many small Maine businesses, Morning Glory is rooted in family tradition. The Tarpinian family has continually operated the store since its opening 30 years ago. It is particularly pleasing to acknowledge the successes of small, family-owned businesses, because these companies help maintain the strong, community-oriented character of Main Street America. And certainly Brunswick's Maine Street is a shining example of this uniquely American proposition. The long-term success and longevity of Morning Glory Natural Foods and the Tarpinian family is a byproduct of the strong work ethic, customer service, and decision to sell quality, local products at affordable prices. Indeed, this business serves the local community on two levels: by providing fresh, environmentally responsible products to Maine citizens, while also supporting other local businesses by electing to sell their products. Morning Glory Natural Foods and the Tarpinians are a true testament to the rewards of hard work and perseverance. On Friday, July 15, Morning Glory Natural Foods will be holding a celebration of ``30 Years on Maine Street,'' a storewide celebration being held at their location in the middle of Brunswick. Events include free food and drink, raffles, and sampling throughout the day, a way to say thanks to the community and the store's loyal customers. Morning Glory also plans to have an abundance of local food vendors and farmers lining the street, another wonderful way to promote and encourage growth in the local economy. Small businesses like Morning Glory Natural Foods are the heart and soul of our Nation's communities. Main Streets across America are chock full of restaurants, grocery stores, and shopping boutiques which provide citizens with the goods and wares they need in a friendly and convenient location and deserve our recognition. Indeed, Morning Glory Natural Foods is a prime example of a small business that has persevered through a turbulent economy time and again, and has come out on top each time. I congratulate everyone at Morning Glory for this incredible milestone and wish them many more years of success.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my home State of Maine is home to countless young entrepreneurs who are working to ensure that our State and Nation have a vibrant, growing economy for years to come. Two of these remarkable individuals reside in northern Maine, where they have begun a booming business based on a college project. Today I recognize the founders of the Northern Maine Distilling Company for their tremendous accomplishments in such a short period of time. Scott Galbiati and Jessica Jewell were students at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute when they worked on a class project together to design a business plan. They chose to create a distillery. And after getting married in 2006, they took their venture to the next level, deciding that this would not remain an abstract plan developed in a classroom, but that they would see this business to its fruition. Most exciting of all, they decided they would create their company in Maine. After many trial runs and much hard work, Scott and Jessica based their company in Houlton, a small community on the State's eastern border with Canada. By utilizing the town's high quality water supply, the locally made and distilled Twenty 2 Vodka, the distillery's flagship product, has quickly become recognized as a truly unique product of Maine. Northern Maine Distilling uses only American made products in their production process, resulting is the creation of 50 gallons of vodka per batch. Additionally, by using their Web site and other social media sites in a smart and effective manner, Scott and Jessica have been able to reach out to communities across the country, sharing recipes and ideas with people nationwide. Twenty 2 Vodka has won several awards over the course of its short existence on the shelves. It received the bronze medal at the New York International Spirits Competition and the 2010 World Beverage Competition, and last year bested all competitors at both the Consumer Judged SIP Awards and San Francisco World Spirits Competition, taking home the gold at both. The vodka has quickly won wide acclaim, and can be found in a variety of locations across the State. But perhaps the biggest achievement for Scott and Jessica thus far was being named the 2011 Entrepreneurs of the Year by the Leaders Encouraging Aroostook Development, or LEAD, and Momentum Aroostook. These two organizations are dedicated to fostering economic growth and development in Maine's northernmost county, and by recognizing Jessica and Scott with this prestigious award, they have identified two of Maine's rising stars in the business world. Starting and growing a business is not any easy task, as any entrepreneur will tell you. But successful business owners demonstrate critical characteristics, like perseverance, commitment, and pragmatism. The Northern Maine Distilling Company was born out of these traits, which clearly shine through in Jessica Jewell and Scott Galbiati. I thank everyone at the Northern Maine Distilling Company for their hard work, and wish them much success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr President, I rise to introduce the High School Data Transparency Act in celebration of the 39th Anniversary of Title IX. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Since the 108th Congress, we have introduced this bill to require that high schools, like their collegiate counterparts, disclose data on equity in sports, making it possible for student athletes and their parents to ensure fairness in their school's athletic programs. Since my first day in Washington in 1979, I have been a stalwart supporter of Title IX. And there should be no mistake what this 39 year-old landmark civil rights law is all about, equal opportunity for both girls and boys to excel in athletics. Obviously, athletic participation supports physical health, but sports also impart benefits beyond the field of play. For girls who compete in sports, 50 percent are less likely to suffer depression and breast cancer . . . 80 percent are less likely to have a drug problem . . . and 92 percent are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. Athletic participation helps cultivate the kind of positive, competitive spirit that develops dedication, self-confidence, a sense of team spirit, and ultimate success later in life. So it is not surprising that, according to several studies, more than eight out of ten successful businesswomen played organized sports while growing up. To cite one example, Irene Rosenfeld, Chairman and CEO, Kraft Foods was quoted as saying, ``growing up, I was extremely athletic, and very competitive. I played four varsity sports in high school and went to Cornell because they had a fabulous women's athletic program, and the academics weren't bad either.'' Without question, Title IX has been the driving factor in allowing thousands of women and girls the opportunity to benefit from intercollegiate and high school sports. Indeed, prior to Title IX, only 1 in 27 high school girls, fewer than 300,000, played sports. Today, the number is more than 2.9 million . . . that is an increase of over 900 percent. Moreover, our country is celebrating the achievements and being inspired by our female athletes now more than ever. Last fall, the University of California, Berkley celebrated the life of the late Jill Costello who served as an inspiration not only to her fellow teammates but to the thousands of girls who defy the odds every day. Jill participated on Cal's Women's Crew Team as their varsity coxswain despite being diagnosed with stage IV cancer with only nine months to live. Throughout her treatment she not only supported her friends, family and teammates but was supported by them. Despite battling for her life Jill led Cal to achieve second place at the NCAA national crew championship. Jill's story proves that the incredible mystical nature of team and friendship does exist. Earlier this year, the University of Connecticut's Women's Basketball Team furthered displayed women's progress in athletics. These women surpassed the University of California at Los Angeles men's basketball record of 88 consecutive wins achieving the longest winning streak of 90 games. The impact of this accomplishment has yet to be fully realized but has surely raised the profile of not only women's basketball but also woman's athletics. Indeed, in my state of Maine, Bowdoin's women's varsity field hockey team has remarkably won Division III national championships in 3 of the last 4 years, putting Bowdoin and Maine on the women's field hockey map. So while we celebrate this remarkable progress, we cannot allow rest on our laurels. That is why I am so pleased to join with Senator Patty Murray, who has been a tireless advocate for women's sports, to reintroduce the High School Sports Data Collection Act of 2011. Our bill directs the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to collect information regarding participation in athletics broken down by gender; teams; race and ethnicity; and overall expenditures, including items like travel expenses, equipment and uniforms. These data are already reported, in most cases, to the state Departments of Education and should not pose any additional burden on the high schools. Further, to ensure public access to this vital information, our legislation would require high schools to post the data on the Department of Education's Web site and make this information available to students and the public upon request. For nearly 40 years, Title IX has opened doors by giving women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in student athletic programs. This bill will continue that tradition by allowing us to assess current opportunities for sports participation for young women, and correct any deficiencies. With this new information, we can ensure that young women all over the country have the chance not only to improve their athletic ability, but also to develop the qualities of teamwork, discipline, and self- confidence that lead to success off the playing field. Soccer star, Mia Hamm, characterized it best when ``somewhere behind the athlete you've become and the hours of practice and the coaches who have pushed you is a little girl who fell in love with the game and never looked back . . . play for her,'' and I am introducing this bill today for her as well.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, it is my privilege and my responsibility today to stand up for small businesses across America that are being unfairly hurt by a punitive and unnecessary tax. The so- called ``tanning tax'' was included at the eleventh hour as part of last year's health care legislative maneuvering, and I am pleased to offer this legislation to repeal the tanning tax. The tanning tax was added to the health care bill without any analysis of how it would affect this industry comprised primarily of small businesses, 75 percent of whose employees and customers are women. I cannot reiterate enough that small businesses are the primary job creators in this country, responsible for more than two-thirds of all new jobs created. At a time when a staggering and seemingly intractable unemployment rate of over 9 percent has become the norm, when some 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, when we are experiencing the longest period of long-term unemployment in American history since data collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession for the length of unemployment, when the percentage of population that is employed has declined to 58.4 percent, the lowest level in nearly 30 years, how could anyone think that shuttering or slowing the growth of small businesses is a good idea? Reports show that small businesses lost an estimated $2 trillion in profits and asset valuation since the recession started in December 2007, while larger companies have been less affected and are recovering more quickly. Combined with the current, on-going economic malaise, the tanning tax is certain to accelerate job losses in this industry beyond the 20,000 jobs already lost nationwide. These small businesses need our help, not a further hindrance such as this tax. I have heard first-hand of just what a job-killing, growth-preventing measure this tax is. Sun Tan City, a chain of small business tanning salons based in Augusta, ME, with 125 employees in Maine and another 50 in New Hampshire have slowed dramatically the expansion of their business. They opened 7 new salons in 2009 but only 4 in 2010 and another 2 in 2011. Sun Tan City remitted $85,000 to the IRS just this past quarter, money that would have gone to grow jobs and their business. The tanning tax is not just about the money, it is also about the burden of compliance. Each store must collect and remit its tanning tax liability individually, increasing the paperwork and compliance burden. At an estimated cost of $74 per hour spent complying with paperwork burdens, merely remitting the tax imposes yet another enormous burden on small businesses. Moreover, the tanning tax is imposed in addition to any state tax levies. For instance, New Jersey imposes a 7 percent tax on tanning services, meaning tanning salons in New Jersey are now responsible for 17 percent in taxes just for this service. We are already hearing that those seeking tanning services are going to other States when possible in order to avoid the higher New Jersey and Federal combined taxes. I guess that is one way to improve interstate commerce. The worst part of the provision, though, may be the way the IRS has interpreted its implementation, in a way that favors larger businesses over smaller ones. The IRS released its tanning tax-implementing guidance on June 15, 2010, just two weeks before the tax became effective. This guidance contained a gross inequity that will subject some businesses to the tanning tax while exempting others. The guidance exempts ``qualified physical fitness facilities,'' which include gyms. That is, a person could pay for a membership at such a facility and be able to use that facility's tanning beds without having to pay the tax. Thus, the tax is having a disproportionate effect on small businesses while allowing larger, syndicated gyms and similar facilities to go untaxed. There are legitimate concerns about the health of those who engage in tanning, whether using natural sunlight or tanning beds. I do not come before you today to argue the science. But the Food and Drug Administration has been under pressure for years to ban outright the use of tanning beds and repeatedly has declined to do so. The 10 percent tanning tax was never designed as a deterrent; it was designed solely to replace the 5 percent tax on Botox injections and elective cosmetic surgery as a revenue raiser to pay for the health care bill. No other factor was discussed, nor were there ever hearings on the merits. I am as concerned as any Senator or citizen about the health of our fellow Americans, but a dead-of-night job-killing tax increase on small businesses is not the way to address any health concerns! There are other ways, such as an education campaign, that would be far more effective and less cumbersome than this 10 percent tax to inform people about any tanning risks, especially when the IRS has carved out big businesses from being affected by the tax. Why is it safe to tan in gyms but not in salons? That is not a question the IRS should be answering. If the health issue is important enough to merit scrutiny of the industry, then let us have that debate, but the fact that there was no debate before this onerous tax was imposed makes it doubly outrageous. This bill is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and by the Indoor Tanning Association, which is comprised of business owners and operators, as well as manufacturers and distributors of tanning equipment. The tanning tax was a painful hit to this sector of our economy and this bill will seek in some way to rectify what was done to them by eliminating the onerous tax going forward. Finally, I want to thank Glen and Dennis Guerrette, whose father, Will, served in the Maine state legislature, and Lewis Henry, all from Maine, for bringing this issue and their stories to my attention. I would also like to thank Congressmen Michael Grimm and Pat Tiberi and many others for their leadership in the House on this crucial issue. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr President, I rise to introduce the High School Data Transparency Act in celebration of the 39th Anniversary of Title IX. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray. Since the 108th Congress, we have introduced this bill to require that high schools, like their collegiate counterparts, disclose data on equity in sports, making it possible for student athletes and their parents to ensure fairness in their school's athletic programs. Since my first day in Washington in 1979, I have been a stalwart supporter of Title IX. And there should be no mistake what this 39 year-old landmark civil rights law is all about, equal opportunity for both girls and boys to excel in athletics. Obviously, athletic participation supports physical health, but sports also impart benefits beyond the field of play. For girls who compete in sports, 50 percent are less likely to suffer depression and breast cancer . . . 80 percent are less likely to have a drug problem . . . and 92 percent are less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. Athletic participation helps cultivate the kind of positive, competitive spirit that develops dedication, self-confidence, a sense of team spirit, and ultimate success later in life. So it is not surprising that, according to several studies, more than eight out of ten successful businesswomen played organized sports while growing up. To cite one example, Irene Rosenfeld, Chairman and CEO, Kraft Foods was quoted as saying, ``growing up, I was extremely athletic, and very competitive. I played four varsity sports in high school and went to Cornell because they had a fabulous women's athletic program, and the academics weren't bad either.'' Without question, Title IX has been the driving factor in allowing thousands of women and girls the opportunity to benefit from intercollegiate and high school sports. Indeed, prior to Title IX, only 1 in 27 high school girls, fewer than 300,000, played sports. Today, the number is more than 2.9 million . . . that is an increase of over 900 percent. Moreover, our country is celebrating the achievements and being inspired by our female athletes now more than ever. Last fall, the University of California, Berkley celebrated the life of the late Jill Costello who served as an inspiration not only to her fellow teammates but to the thousands of girls who defy the odds every day. Jill participated on Cal's Women's Crew Team as their varsity coxswain despite being diagnosed with stage IV cancer with only nine months to live. Throughout her treatment she not only supported her friends, family and teammates but was supported by them. Despite battling for her life Jill led Cal to achieve second place at the NCAA national crew championship. Jill's story proves that the incredible mystical nature of team and friendship does exist. Earlier this year, the University of Connecticut's Women's Basketball Team furthered displayed women's progress in athletics. These women surpassed the University of California at Los Angeles men's basketball record of 88 consecutive wins achieving the longest winning streak of 90 games. The impact of this accomplishment has yet to be fully realized but has surely raised the profile of not only women's basketball but also woman's athletics. Indeed, in my state of Maine, Bowdoin's women's varsity field hockey team has remarkably won Division III national championships in 3 of the last 4 years, putting Bowdoin and Maine on the women's field hockey map. So while we celebrate this remarkable progress, we cannot allow rest on our laurels. That is why I am so pleased to join with Senator Patty Murray, who has been a tireless advocate for women's sports, to reintroduce the High School Sports Data Collection Act of 2011. Our bill directs the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to collect information regarding participation in athletics broken down by gender; teams; race and ethnicity; and overall expenditures, including items like travel expenses, equipment and uniforms. These data are already reported, in most cases, to the state Departments of Education and should not pose any additional burden on the high schools. Further, to ensure public access to this vital information, our legislation would require high schools to post the data on the Department of Education's Web site and make this information available to students and the public upon request. For nearly 40 years, Title IX has opened doors by giving women and girls an equal opportunity to participate in student athletic programs. This bill will continue that tradition by allowing us to assess current opportunities for sports participation for young women, and correct any deficiencies. With this new information, we can ensure that young women all over the country have the chance not only to improve their athletic ability, but also to develop the qualities of teamwork, discipline, and self- confidence that lead to success off the playing field. Soccer star, Mia Hamm, characterized it best when ``somewhere behind the athlete you've become and the hours of practice and the coaches who have pushed you is a little girl who fell in love with the game and never looked back . . . play for her,'' and I am introducing this bill today for her as well.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as former Chair and now Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, it is my privilege and my responsibility today to stand up for small businesses across America that are being unfairly hurt by a punitive and unnecessary tax. The so- called ``tanning tax'' was included at the eleventh hour as part of last year's health care legislative maneuvering, and I am pleased to offer this legislation to repeal the tanning tax. The tanning tax was added to the health care bill without any analysis of how it would affect this industry comprised primarily of small businesses, 75 percent of whose employees and customers are women. I cannot reiterate enough that small businesses are the primary job creators in this country, responsible for more than two-thirds of all new jobs created. At a time when a staggering and seemingly intractable unemployment rate of over 9 percent has become the norm, when some 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed, when we are experiencing the longest period of long-term unemployment in American history since data collection started in 1948, surpassing even the 1982 double-dip recession for the length of unemployment, when the percentage of population that is employed has declined to 58.4 percent, the lowest level in nearly 30 years, how could anyone think that shuttering or slowing the growth of small businesses is a good idea? Reports show that small businesses lost an estimated $2 trillion in profits and asset valuation since the recession started in December 2007, while larger companies have been less affected and are recovering more quickly. Combined with the current, on-going economic malaise, the tanning tax is certain to accelerate job losses in this industry beyond the 20,000 jobs already lost nationwide. These small businesses need our help, not a further hindrance such as this tax. I have heard first-hand of just what a job-killing, growth-preventing measure this tax is. Sun Tan City, a chain of small business tanning salons based in Augusta, ME, with 125 employees in Maine and another 50 in New Hampshire have slowed dramatically the expansion of their business. They opened 7 new salons in 2009 but only 4 in 2010 and another 2 in 2011. Sun Tan City remitted $85,000 to the IRS just this past quarter, money that would have gone to grow jobs and their business. The tanning tax is not just about the money, it is also about the burden of compliance. Each store must collect and remit its tanning tax liability individually, increasing the paperwork and compliance burden. At an estimated cost of $74 per hour spent complying with paperwork burdens, merely remitting the tax imposes yet another enormous burden on small businesses. Moreover, the tanning tax is imposed in addition to any state tax levies. For instance, New Jersey imposes a 7 percent tax on tanning services, meaning tanning salons in New Jersey are now responsible for 17 percent in taxes just for this service. We are already hearing that those seeking tanning services are going to other States when possible in order to avoid the higher New Jersey and Federal combined taxes. I guess that is one way to improve interstate commerce. The worst part of the provision, though, may be the way the IRS has interpreted its implementation, in a way that favors larger businesses over smaller ones. The IRS released its tanning tax-implementing guidance on June 15, 2010, just two weeks before the tax became effective. This guidance contained a gross inequity that will subject some businesses to the tanning tax while exempting others. The guidance exempts ``qualified physical fitness facilities,'' which include gyms. That is, a person could pay for a membership at such a facility and be able to use that facility's tanning beds without having to pay the tax. Thus, the tax is having a disproportionate effect on small businesses while allowing larger, syndicated gyms and similar facilities to go untaxed. There are legitimate concerns about the health of those who engage in tanning, whether using natural sunlight or tanning beds. I do not come before you today to argue the science. But the Food and Drug Administration has been under pressure for years to ban outright the use of tanning beds and repeatedly has declined to do so. The 10 percent tanning tax was never designed as a deterrent; it was designed solely to replace the 5 percent tax on Botox injections and elective cosmetic surgery as a revenue raiser to pay for the health care bill. No other factor was discussed, nor were there ever hearings on the merits. I am as concerned as any Senator or citizen about the health of our fellow Americans, but a dead-of-night job-killing tax increase on small businesses is not the way to address any health concerns! There are other ways, such as an education campaign, that would be far more effective and less cumbersome than this 10 percent tax to inform people about any tanning risks, especially when the IRS has carved out big businesses from being affected by the tax. Why is it safe to tan in gyms but not in salons? That is not a question the IRS should be answering. If the health issue is important enough to merit scrutiny of the industry, then let us have that debate, but the fact that there was no debate before this onerous tax was imposed makes it doubly outrageous. This bill is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and by the Indoor Tanning Association, which is comprised of business owners and operators, as well as manufacturers and distributors of tanning equipment. The tanning tax was a painful hit to this sector of our economy and this bill will seek in some way to rectify what was done to them by eliminating the onerous tax going forward. Finally, I want to thank Glen and Dennis Guerrette, whose father, Will, served in the Maine state legislature, and Lewis Henry, all from Maine, for bringing this issue and their stories to my attention. I would also like to thank Congressmen Michael Grimm and Pat Tiberi and many others for their leadership in the House on this crucial issue. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support the nomination of Leon Panetta, the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to be the 23rd Secretary of Defense. Director Panetta has contributed nearly five decades of public service to our Nation, including as an officer in the U.S. Army, a distinguished Congressman, and most recently as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a position for which he was confirmed by the Senate on February 12, 2009. He and I served together in the House of Representatives from my first term in 1979 until he departed in 1993 to become Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have had the opportunity to frequently work with Director Panetta, in my role as a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Like his predecessor, Dr. Robert Gates--who also served as CIA Director before becoming Secretary of Defense--Director Panetta brings to the Pentagon a wealth of experience built over a lifetime of service to his Nation and his fellow Americans. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, Director Panetta has repaired a damaged relationship between the CIA and Congress, an impressive accomplishment, to say the least, and led the agency and the Nation's human intelligence activities at a time when the Nation waged two wars and contended with such threats as Islamic extremism, terrorism, and cyber intrusion and attack. And of course, Director Panetta will forever be remembered as the CIA Director during the May 1, 2011, mission in which U.S. forces once and for all rid the world of public enemy No. 1 and brought justice to the evil incarnate that was Osama bin Laden. On that night, the combined might of our Nations military, intelligence, and counterterrorism professionals sent the unmistakable message to the terrorists of the world that America will prevail in this fight. I deeply appreciate Director Panetta's efforts at the CIA, and believe he leaves the entire Agency, from the halls of Langley to its agents in the farthest reaches of the world, a better and more capable organization than it was when he arrived. I am confident that Director Panetta's unique experiences within the military, the Congress, and the intelligence communities will serve him, the Department of Defense, and the Nation well when he assumes the role of Secretary of Defense. More than 4\1/2\ years ago, in December 2006, I rose in support of the nomination of Dr. Gates for the position for which we consider Director Panetta today. At the time, I said that Dr. Gates and the Nation were facing the imperative of charting a new course and strategy in Iraq, rising violence in Afghanistan, global terrorism, the threats posed by nuclear states such as North Korea and possibly Iran, and the increasing strains on our military. Director Panetta faces similar challenges today. He must continue to help shape our role in Iraq, define our strategy for the Nation's future involvement in Afghanistan, and recapitalize and reconstitute the elements of our military that have been at war for nearly a decade, while ensuring that the U.S. military is prepared to meet and overcome any hurdle on the horizon, whether in North Korea, China, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or other, as yet unknowable, places around this globe. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 9, Director Panetta said, ``We are no longer in the Cold War. This is more like the blizzard war--a blizzard of challenges that draws speed and intensity from terrorism, from rapidly developing technologies, and the rising number of powers on the world stage.'' Director Panetta must confront the unpredictable vagaries of this ``blizzard war'' within perhaps the most arduous budgetary environment our Nation has faced since the Great Depression--an environment in which President Obama has already called for $400 billion in reductions to national security spending over the next decade, much of which will come out of Department of Defense budgets. It is hard to imagine how exactly cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars to national security budgets can be possible without both significant tradeoffs and a fundamental retooling of our national security strategy. Perhaps more imperative than any other task confronting him, Director Panetta will likely be the individual most responsible for ensuring that our national security strategy is appropriate for meeting our global and national security interests, and that our defense budgets are sufficient to meet those challenges. In this era in which distance alone is insufficient to insulate the United States and our global interests from terrorists and nations that wish to do us harm, Director Panetta faces the extraordinary task of ensuring that our Armed Forces remain able to defeat today's conventional and irregular threats, project power and U.S. presence around the world, and develop the war fighting capabilities necessary for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to prevail in the conflicts of the future. If any nominee possesses the defense and budget bona fides required for such times, it is Director Panetta, who has demonstrated his capabilities as Director of the CIA, as former OMB Director, and as the former chair of the House Budget Committee. I believe that he is well prepared for the challenges of leading the Department of Defense, and I will vote to confirm Director Panetta as our 23rd Secretary of Defense. On a final note, Secretary Gates will soon take leave from his post at the Pentagon, and I believe that he will be remembered for his consummate role in transforming our Nation's military from a force that focused on Cold War operations to one that was capable of defeating threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, while possessing the flexibility necessary to successfully carry out a mission like the one that killed bin Laden. As Secretary Gates prepares to depart public life, I would like to thank him for the countless sacrifices he has made over a lifetime of contributions to the nation, which includes serving eight Presidents, as well as the distinctions of being the only Secretary of Defense in U.S. history asked to remain in that office by a newly elected President, and the only career officer in the CIA's history to rise from entry-level employee to Director. These two stand-out achievements speak volumes about Secretary Gates' work ethic and love of country. Our country and our security have been forever enhanced by his dedication to public service, and I wish him well in his future endeavors. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Mahatma Gandhi once said, ``Strength does not come from physical capacity, it comes from an indomitable will.'' Today, I recognize and pay tribute to Nicholas Maxim, an extraordinary young man from Readfield, ME, and the living embodiment of Gandhi's words. Nicholas, a fifth grade student at Readfield Elementary School, was recently presented with a national award for his outstanding penmanship. He earned the award when, unbeknownst to him, his principal submitted a sample of his handwriting to Zaner-Bloser, an Ohio-based company that holds an annual handwriting contest. While this national honor would, in and of itself, merit the high praise and recognition of this esteemed institution, this accomplishment is even more compelling and impressive when one considers that Nicholas was born without lower arms or hands. His writing sample, which stood out among the estimated 200,000 entries, was executed by balancing the writing utensil between his two upper arms--the manner in which he routinely writes, given that he rarely uses his prosthetic devices for such purposes. Nicholas' sample was so outstanding, and his story so compelling and inspirational, that Zaner-Bloser created a new award category in his honor--the ``Nicholas Maxim Special Award for Excellent Penmanship.'' Fittingly, Nicholas was the first recipient of this special award earlier this year. His story caught the attention of many of the national media outlets but, despite all the attention and accolades, Nicholas retained his humility and unassuming style. Preferring to stay out of the limelight and seemingly content to allow others to talk about his myriad accomplishments, Nicholas represents Maine and our Nation with unwavering modesty that speaks volumes about his character and personality. During my congressional career, I have often spoken about the primacy of maintaining one's values and integrity, setting high expectations and goals, and believing in one's self. I further contend that there are certain constants that are timeless, and one of them is that the greatest limits that will be placed on our lives are the ones which we place upon ourselves. A courageous and persistent young man, Nicholas is truly an inspiration to us all, as he has never allowed his circumstances to limit what he can achieve. As a testament to this fact, one of Nicholas' favorite pastimes is writing and drawing comic strips. Delightful and humble, Nicholas innately possesses an unconquerable resolve that is hidden beneath an unpretentious exterior. His sister captured the essence of these character traits when, to the Kennebec Journal, she said about him, ``He is who he is and does what he does not to get attention . . . It's for me to see him being who he is that's an inspiration.'' Undeniably, Nicholas Maxim stands as a shining testament to the power of the human spirit. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to him for demonstrating to children and adults alike, across the State of Maine and, indeed, our Nation, that by placing no restrictions on your horizons, you broaden the range of possibilities that exist for you and the trajectory you envision for yourself.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last night, the Boston Bruins completed a stunning comeback to win the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1972. This monumental victory is a testament to the team's workmanlike approach to the game, and there is much praise to go around. But one of the key players who contributed to the inspired game 7 win was Tim Thomas, Boston's fantastic goaltender. Winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy of Stanley Cup Final Most Valuable Player--at age 37, the oldest player to win this honor--Thomas posted a .967 save percentage in the series, stopping 238 of 246 shots, and stopping a record 798 shots in the entire playoffs. More than just a team player on the ice, Tim Thomas is also involved in the community with his Tim Thomas Hockey Camps. Today, I rise to recognize Tim Thomas and his endeavors to promote both hockey and sportsmanship throughout New England. Incorporated in Portland, ME, Tim Thomas Hockey Camps got their start 4 years ago to help players of all ages participate and develop skills in the exciting sport of hockey. Camps are held during the summer across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts, and campers have expressed tremendous appreciation of the dedication of the camps' staff to teaching the fundamentals of the game. Tim leads a team of 20 experienced staff members, from former National Hockey League players to college standouts and coaches, who impart their vast knowledge on camp attendees. Aside from the technical aspects of hockey, the camps also teach players about teamwork, camaraderie, and the importance of a strong work ethic. Additionally, the Tim Thomas Foundation helps both hockey players and organizations in need of assistance, and supports a number of groups and charities from the Greely Hockey Boosters in Cumberland, ME, to the Hunger Mountain Children's Center in Waterbury, VT. Tim's desire to help others attain their goals in hockey comes from his own moving story, which is a case study in hard work, patience and perseverance. A star goalie at the University of Vermont, he was drafted 217th overall in 1994 by the now-defunct Quebec Nordiques. After spending several seasons in the minor leagues and in Europe, Tim made his debut with the Boston Bruins when he was 28 years old and became the team's starting goaltender 3 years later. Tim has racked up numerous accolades and All Star Game appearances over the course of his career, including winning the Vezina Trophy in 2009 as the NHL's best goaltender. He is almost certainly a lock to win it again this year. Furthermore, what makes this year's accomplishment so special is that Tim had off-season hip surgery last summer. Tim Thomas' remarkable road to the Stanley Cup is truly noteworthy for aspiring hockey players across New England, and indeed the country. To many, he is a hero who helped bring the Cup back to Boston for the first time in 39 years. But to many more, Tim Thomas is also a role model, who inspires children of all ages to pursue their goals and dreams in the hopes that, one day, with hard work and resolve, they too can attain the ultimate prize. I thank Tim Thomas and everyone who is a part of the Tim Thomas Hockey Camps for their superb work, and offer my congratulations to the Bruins organization on its stellar victory!

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act, which will help us improve care and reduce costs. We are joined by Senator Isakson, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Inouye, who also recognize the tremendous value offered by home infusion therapy. Today many serious conditions, including some cancers and drug- resistant infections--requires the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services, such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring, are part of such therapy. The course of infusion treatment often lasts for several hours per day over a 6-to-8 week period. The regrettable fact is that Medicare patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves, or endure hospitalization in order to receive coverage. Though Medicare pays for infusion drugs, it does not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can afford that cost. The result is that patients are hospitalized needlessly, driving costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. These unnecessary hospitalizations are not only wasteful to Medicare, but they may even place the patient at risk of contracting a health care-acquired infection. Private coverage for home infusion therapy is commonplace. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have familiar, comfortable surroundings, and family conveniently at hand, no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. In fact, according to a June 2010 Government Accountability Office report, ``Health insurers contend that the benefit has been cost-effective, that is, providing infusion therapy at home generally costs less than treatment in other settings. They also contend that the benefit is largely free from inappropriate utilization and problems in quality of care.'' By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this unintended and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act, which will help us improve care and reduce costs. We are joined by Senator Isakson, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Inouye, who also recognize the tremendous value offered by home infusion therapy. Today many serious conditions, including some cancers and drug- resistant infections--requires the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services, such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring, are part of such therapy. The course of infusion treatment often lasts for several hours per day over a 6-to-8 week period. The regrettable fact is that Medicare patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves, or endure hospitalization in order to receive coverage. Though Medicare pays for infusion drugs, it does not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can afford that cost. The result is that patients are hospitalized needlessly, driving costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. These unnecessary hospitalizations are not only wasteful to Medicare, but they may even place the patient at risk of contracting a health care-acquired infection. Private coverage for home infusion therapy is commonplace. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have familiar, comfortable surroundings, and family conveniently at hand, no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. In fact, according to a June 2010 Government Accountability Office report, ``Health insurers contend that the benefit has been cost-effective, that is, providing infusion therapy at home generally costs less than treatment in other settings. They also contend that the benefit is largely free from inappropriate utilization and problems in quality of care.'' By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this unintended and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.