A bill to provide for certain administrative and support services for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act of 2007. Senators Pryor, Craig, and I are introducing this legislation to assist veterans and small businesses that employ Guard and reservists. Our bill improves the Small Business Administration's, SBA's, Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. Additionally, this bill increases procurement opportunities, capital access, and other types of business development assistance for veterans and service-disabled veterans.

We all know today's small business men and women play a vital role in the economic stability and prosperity of our Nation. Quite often, these same entrepreneurs are the veterans who have protected our Nation in years past, or who serve in the Armed Forces today. When our Nation's patriotic men and women are called to duty, they often leave behind thriving small businesses, and as a result, many of these businesses experience production slowdowns and lost sales, or incur additional expenses to compensate for an employee's absence.

In recent years, the Department of Defense has placed a greater reliance on our country's Guard and Reserve Forces. In fact, since September 2001, nearly 600,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up in support of current operations, comprising nearly one-third of deployed service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Guard and Reserve members were charged with assisting recovery efforts in the gulf coast region in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In my 4 years as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and now as ranking member, I have fought to support our patriotic small businesses affected by the Guard and Reserve call- ups. My home State of Maine has one of the highest Guard and Reserve deployment levels in the country--over 50 percent have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to this I commissioned a Congressional Budget Office, CBO, study which found that 35 percent of Guard and reservists work for small busineses or are self-employed. In addition, the small businesses that employ them may be ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased Guard and Reserve member call-ups. The burden is further magnified when it is the small business owner or a key employee who is deployed.

Our legislation will raise the maximum MREIDL amount from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. A maximum military reservist loan amount of $2,000,000 is the same level as many of the SBA's other loan programs, including: 7(a) loans, international trade loans, and 504 Certified Development Corporation loans that serve a public policy goal.

Currently, some of the SBA's contracting and business development programs have defined time limits for participation. If the firm's time for participation expires prematurely, then competitive opportunities, investments, and jobs become lost. Today, small business owners who get called-up to active duty in the National Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized because their active duty time is counted against the time limitation participation in the SBA's programs. The Veterans Small Business Opportunity Act amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the duration of their owners' active duty service after September 11, 2001.

Additionally, this bill will allow the SBA Administrator, either directly or through banks, to offer loans up to $25,000 without requiring collateral from a loan applicant. Currently, the SBA offers military reservist loans up to $5,000 without collateral. This provision would increase that level to eligible small businesses.

The bill will also require the Administrator to give military reservist loan applications priority for processing and ensure that Guard and Reserve members are adequately assisted with their loan application by incorporating the support and expertise of SBA entrepreneurial development partners, such as Small Business Development Centers and Veterans Business Outreach Centers.

This legislation increases the authorization of appropriations for the SBA's Office of Veteran Business Development to $2 million for fiscal year 2008, $2.1 million for fiscal year 2009 and $2.2 million for fiscal year 2010. Increased funding for SBA's Office of Veterans Business Development help them better assist our Nation's veterans and provide the business services they need.

This legislation will also strengthen the access of veterans and service-disabled veterans to Federal contracts and subcontracts. Under the Small Business Act and the President's Executive Order 13360, Providing Opportunities for Service-Disabled Veteran Businesses To Increase Their Federal Contracting and Subcontracting, Federal agencies must award at least 3 percent of prime contracts and subcontracts to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. The order states that, to achieve these goals, Federal agencies ``shall more effectively'' use the authorities in the Small Business Act to reserve and award contracts to service-disabled veterans. During the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing held in January, it became very clear that Federal agencies have been short-changing service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to the tune of over $7.5 billion a year in government contracts during fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005. To remedy this unacceptable situation, our legislation puts the force of a congressional statute behind the requirements of the President's Executive order.

In addition, our legislation ensures that veterans and service- disabled veterans do not face confusing and duplicative red tape before they can be eligible to access the Federal procurement market. Currently, the Department of

Veterans Affairs and the SBA both operate registration databases for small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans. A veteran must often register in both databases to be properly considered for bidding. Surely, in this information age, we can have a better process. Registration data can easily be made to migrate from one database to the other. Our legislation requires that a single registration point for both of these databases be established within a year. Such one-stop registration must be reliable and compliant with statutory provisions concerning veteran and service-disabled veteran status certifications for small businesses.

To increase the capacity of service-disabled veteran-owned firms, my legislation permits the SBA, in cooperation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to develop a business development assistance program, including mentor-protege assistance, to be administered by the SBA. Our legislation contains a strict fairness requirement that any such program must be developed in such a way as to ensure success of other small business contracting programs. Within a year, the SBA is required to submit a report to Congress on its proposals for this program. In 2004, I succeeded in amending the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege Program statute by expanding it to service-disabled veterans. Since then, over $204 million in contracts and subcontracts have been awarded to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses as a result of the $17 million in mentor-Protege assistance. This represents a stunning $12 return for every $1 in assistance investment. I believe the success of this initiative should be replicated. The SBA is already administering a Mentor-Protege Program as part of the 8(a) business development program for small disadvantaged businesses, and both the SBA and the DOD programs would provide useful examples for helping our disabled veterans succeed.

Finally, our legislation creates an interagency task force among Federal agencies charged with improving procurement opportunities for service-disabled veterans. The scope of this task force will, in addition to procurement, include franchising, capital access, and other types of business development assistance. In examining the implementation of Executive Order 13360 and other veterans business development initiatives, our committee found that the responsible agencies were not talking to each other on a regular basis, and that no overall ``game plan'' was in place to coordinate various Federal efforts.

I would like to thank Senators Pryor and Craig for working with me on this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. President, I was proud to help create the State Children's Health Insurance Program during the Clinton Administration. It has provided health insurance for 6 million children, including more than 425,000 in New York. SCHIP was the biggest expansion in providing health insurance coverage in more than 30 years--a big first step to providing quality health care coverage for all children.

And now it is time to take the next step. Today, I am introducing new legislation with my colleague from the House of Representatives, Chairman Dingell: a plan to make quality affordable health care available to every child in America.

The Children's Health First Act will make quality, affordable health care available to all children, and will pave the way to cover the more than nine million children in our country without health coverage.

Our bill cuts red tape to allow States to provide affordable healthcare options for all families to cover their children. It gives States the financial incentives and resources to expand--existing State coverage and find and enroll the 6 million children who are currently eligible for health coverage but are not enrolled. And it provides incentives to expand employer sponsored coverage for children.

As individuals and as a Nation, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. Health care accessible and affordable for all children will keep kids healthy, save lives, control costs, and end heartache and worry for so many parents. This plan is practical and fiscally responsible--it will honor our values and prevent kids from needing more costly healthcare in the future.

Our bill will provide incentives for States to expand SCHIP to more children and provide health coverage for children up to 400 percent of poverty, about $70,000 for a family of three.

Parents whose incomes are above their State's SCHIP eligibility levels and employers who want to provide coverage to dependents will also have the option to buy-in to the SCHIP program. This will ensure that all families have access to affordable coverage and aren't forced into the private insurance market where affordable options for their children are often out of reach.

And while expanding coverage is critical, enrolling children who are already eligible must also be part of our efforts to ensure every child has health insurance.

Currently, there are 6 million uninsured children who are eligible for public programs but not enrolled. In order to receive expanded Federal funding under our bill, States must undertake strategies designed to enhance outreach and enrollment of currently eligible children.

In addition, the Children's Health First Act would prevent funding shortfalls like those that 14 States are currently facing. Unlike the original SCHIP bill our legislation would determine funding based on State spending and indexed to medical inflation and child population growth so that states will get the funds they need.

Every child deserves a healthy start in life. This goes to the heart of our values, our responsibility to one another, the promise of our country. Far too many children in our Nation--more than 9 million--do not have health care. And, for the first time in nearly a decade, between 2004 and 2005, the number of uninsured children in New York increased by 61,000--part of a trend nationally.

It's simply wrong that there are working parents who worry about their children playing sports because they can't afford a doctor if their child gets hurt. I've met parents who when their children get sick fret and worry about their children's illness--but have the added anxiety of wondering how they are going to pay for the doctor visit. That just shouldn't happen.

No child in America, the greatest, richest Nation on Earth home to so much promise, should lack for the care he or she needs to grow up to be a healthy, happy adult.

We can tackle this challenge--and provide access to quality, affordable health care for all children in America. It's the right thing to do, and it's the smart thing to do.

I am proud to introduce this legislation. It will help us honor our values, protect our children. We can meet this challenge and that's what I'll be working with Chairman Dingell and my Senate colleagues to achieve this year.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Gestational Diabetes Act of 2007 with my colleague Senator Collins, to bring attention to an important health issue facing women and children.

I don't need to tell anyone that we have an obesity epidemic in the United States. Many of us realize that as parents, it is our responsibility to pass on good nutritional habits to our children. But many women may not realize that watching what you eat, exercising regularly, and having control of your blood sugar levels are serious health considerations during pregnancy. In fact, these factors are serious enough that they can affect both the health of the mother and the life of the child into adulthood.

More women than ever are entering their pregnancies overweight but without an understanding of how their own weight and nutritional habits can trigger gestational diabetes--a type of diabetes that only occurs during pregnancy. Women who are overweight before pregnancy are not only at greater risk of having gestational diabetes but are also more likely to have a c-section and are at an increased risk for other serious pregnancy complications.

In New York, gestational diabetes is on the rise. In New York City alone, gestational diabetes has risen by nearly 50 percent in about 10 years. This means that gestational diabetes affects 1 in 25 women, about 400 women per month. But across the Nation, between 4 and 8 percent of pregnant women in the United States are affected by gestational diabetes. Infants of women who have gestational diabetes are at increased risk for obesity and developing type 2 diabetes as adolescents or adults.

As women, we need to pay attention to our health. We are always worrying about the health of our children, our husbands, and our parents, but we often forget to take care of ourselves.

Today, I am introducing the Gestational Diabetes Act, also known as the GEDI Act. This legislation will increase our understanding of gestational diabetes by determining the factors that contribute to this condition and help mothers who had gestational diabetes reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes post-pregnancy.

The GEDI Act will provide funding for projects to assist health care providers, as well as for communities to find ways to reach out to women so that they understand how their own good health during pregnancy can decrease serious health risks for their children.

The GEDI Act would expand research to determine and develop interventions to lower the incidence of gestational diabetes. We need to alert women to the risk before this condition becomes an epidemic and, as we have seen so many times before, education is critical.

We should be doing everything we can to address the impact of obesity during pregnancy and to reduce the prevalence of gestational diabetes in pregnant women. The GEDI Act is an important step in assuring that women understand this critical issue and that we fully understand how to equip pregnant women to make the best choices for their health.

The GEDI Act is supported by the American Diabetes Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Research Center for Women & Families, International Community Health Services, American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy.

Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, more than 1.5 million of our servicemen and women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations. We have mobilized more than 630,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves, including 92,000 who are on active duty right now.

These service men and women have courageously defended our country overseas, but tens of thousands of them have come home to find that they have lost their employment benefits or even their jobs, and the Government has failed to defend their rights.

Today, Senator Daniel Akaka and I are introducing legislation to guarantee that veterans won't have to wait years for the Government to act to restore their benefits or return to work.

Thirteen years ago, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, specifically to protect our servicemembers when they return home. We understood that, to maintain strong focus and a strong National Guard and Reserves, servicemembers needed confidence that they could return to their civilian jobs when they came home from their tours of duty. That legislation was a clear promise that the Federal Government would step in and defend servicemembers who were wrongly denied their jobs or benefits. We pledged that the Department of Labor would investigate violations of the act, and that if employers refused to follow the law, the Attorney General would take employers to court to protect our servicemembers' rights.

Today, however, the administration has clearly broken that promise to enforce the law and get our veterans back to work.

Last month, during a Senate Committee hearing, I released a Department of Defense survey showing that for tens of thousands of veterans, their service to our country has cost them the salary they deserve, their health care, their pensions, or even their jobs. Among members of the Reserves and National Guard, nearly 11,000 were denied prompt reemployment. More than 22,000 lost seniority and rightful pay. Nearly 20,000 had their pensions reduced. More than 15,000 did not receive the training they needed to resume their former jobs. Nearly 11,000 did not get their health insurance back.

The problem is that employers aren't following the law, and Federal agencies aren't effectively enforcing it. Mr. President, 38 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor to defend their rights did not receive a prompt response. Servicemembers are forced to wait months or years even to find out whether the Government will agree to represent them and defend their rights. One veteran waited 7 years before the Department of Labor told him whether it would take his case to court. No veteran can afford to wait seven months to return to work or have his health insurance reinstated, let alone wait 7 years.

With these unbelievable delays, it is not surprising that 44 percent of servicemembers who asked the Department of Labor for help said that they were dissatisfied with the assistance they received. When servicemen and women hear about these delays, they ask themselves, ``Why should I even bother to ask for help.''

In fact, the Pentagon tells us that 77 percent of servicemembers whose rights are violated don't contact anyone to defend their rights. They simply give up. Nearly half of them say that they have no confidence that the Government will resolve their problems, or that it is just not worth the effort.

Even worse, a quarter of them don't even know where they can go for help. It is beyond dispute that the administration has broken its promise to help them.

Our veterans deserve better than this. They deserve to know that their Government is working as quickly as possible to get them back to work and restore their benefits.

The current law needs reform as well. It makes no sense to have four different agencies tracking the problems of our servicemembers in four different ways. We also need to know whether disabled veterans are being properly assisted in making their own difficult transition back to work.

It is time for the administration to keep its promise, and end the long delays for veterans who need help in defending their rights. The bill that Senator Akaka and I are introducing imposes timely and reasonable deadlines on Federal agencies to investigate complaints, to attempt to resolve them, and, if necessary, to refer them for litigation.

The legislation also makes the Federal enforcement of the law more transparent and responsive to the needs of veterans. It assures veterans that they won't have to wait years for an answer about whether they will receive the help they deserve.

By imposing timely deadlines on the Federal agencies, we are also stepping up the pressure on employers that violate the rights of our brave soldiers. With these new deadlines, employers won't be able to drag their heels as the Department of Labor spends months or years investigating violations. They will know that they have to settle each veteran's case quickly and fairly, or else face the U.S. Government in court.

The legislation also implements a number of reforms recommended by the Government Accountability Office--reforms that have received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. In particular, our bill requires agencies to gather and report information on these cases in a uniform manner, so that we can understand trends and better address the needs of each servicemember. Agencies will also be required to report on cases involving veterans with disabilities, so that we have accurate information on the reemployment problems of our wounded soldiers.

Enacting this legislation alone obviously won't end the job discrimination that too many servicemembers face when they come home. But it will certainly improve the assistance they receive in obtaining the help they have earned and deserve.

Our legislation has the support of the Nation's largest veterans' organization, the American Legion, which emphasizes that the ``enforcement of veterans' employment and reemployment rights . . . can only be achieved through aggressive oversight and timely investigation.'' This legislation, the American Legion says, will ``strengthen veterans' employment and reemployment rights'' by imposing ``timely, realistic deadlines on Federal agencies to process'' their claims. We are proud to have the American Legion's support for this legislation.

We know we can never truly repay our veterans for their immense sacrifices. They have fought hard for our country, and it is up to us to fight just as hard for them when they return home to the heroes' welcome they so justly deserve. An important part of that welcome is keeping the promise that we made to them to protect their employment rights when they return.

That is what this legislation seeks to do, and I urge my colleagues to enact it as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleague from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, in introducing the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007.

As most of us in this Chamber know, elemental mercury is a poisonous neurotoxin that can cause serious disability or death if ingested. Unfortunately, many people in the United States, and many millions more worldwide, do indeed ingest mercury--unintentionally, however, as a result of industrial emissions or practices, or poor waste management and storage techniques. When mercury enters into the environment, it often shows up in plants and animals, and that means a major source of mercury ingestion for humans comes as a result of eating certain types of fish. That, in turn, causes serious developmental problems in half a million children in our country, and similar health problems in adults, especially women at childbearing age.

Last year, an investigative report published in the Chicago Tribune outlined the extent of mercury contamination in fish. After concluding that the fish sampling efforts conducted by the Federal Government were limited and outdated, the Tribune conducted its own sampling, and the results showed surprisingly high levels of mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by consumers in the Chicago region--higher levels than had been documented by the Federal Government. Mercury was found in both freshwater and saltwater species--tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and walleye, to name a few examples. The Tribune also reported on how existing programs at the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in fish.

For those of us who like fish, it causes us to pause when we first learn of the range of species with high mercury levels. For pregnant women and other at-risk groups, however, this doesn't just cause pause, it creates serious concerns about health consequences. Meanwhile, experts tell us that fish is an excellent source of critical nutrients and other compounds indispensable for good health. More of us should eat more fish.

So the real long-term solution is not to eat less fish, or to criticize those who commercially provide us with fish as food. It's not about issuing advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting placards at the supermarket, or creating inspection bureaucracies, or collecting statistics. If we're serious about eliminating mercury from fish, we need to reduce mercury in the environment.

Half of mercury settles where it is emitted, and the other half gets transported around the globe where we lose track of it, and it winds up in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury sources. From there, up it goes, through the food chain. If mercury is both local, and global, then the solution is not up to one state, or one nation, but up to all states and nations. The bill we introduce today was crafted based on that premise.

The Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, establishes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a ban, when coupled with goal of the European Union to ban mercury exports by 2011, and the insufficient capacity in the world's mercury mines to respond, will result in a tightening of the global supply of commercially available elemental mercury in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury will be compelled to switch to the affordable alternatives that are already widespread in industrialized nations.

The M3 Act also requires those Federal agencies that now hold mercury in stockpiles to keep that mercury. Right now, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, possess tons of mercury left over from various operations over the years. While it is the policy of these agencies to keep this mercury--not to sell it, not to transfer it, not to release it from their possession--it is not the law. The M3 act codifies these policies. In December of 2006, it was widely understood that the Department of Energy was considering the sale of its mercury stockpiles. After various inquiries into the matter, the Department of Energy ultimately announced that it would not sell its stockpiles. That underscores why a prohibition of stockpile sales must be enacted into law by the M3 act if we are to be assured that mercury remains safely stored, away from the environment, and not sold overseas to places where tracking and emissions and waste disposal laws may be inadequate.

Finally, the M3 Act calls for the creation of a committee to explore and make recommendations on the issues associated with the development of a permanent repository of mercury collected as a result of an export prohibition. Mercury is not like spent nuclear fuel, or other substances that may create community concerns, in that when mercury is stored in stainless steel containers in refrigeration, it remains benign. Every community must be provided the opportunity to evaluate for themselves if and when mercury is stored nearby in secure and stable storage. I do believe, however, that when mercury is safely and permanently stored, it means less microscopic mercury on one's dinner plate, less mercury in our kids' tuna fish sandwiches, and less mercury in the air we breathe.

Last month, a United States delegation, led by the State Department, participated in an international meeting in Kenya, sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme, where world representative discussed how to reduce mercury pollution. Two years ago, the U.S. Government could have taken a bolder stance, and did not. This time, with the decision of the E.U. to ban mercury exports, the United States had an opportunity to partner with its allies to eliminate a major part of worldwide elemental mercury contamination. Again, the State Department did not.

It is not often that policy options, such as this, might be considered ``low-hanging fruit''--in that a small act of international leadership by the United States government could have far reaching benefits for the health of our kids, as well as millions of low-income hardworking artisanal gold miners whom we will never meet. But the United States, so far, has not acted. This bill, the M3 bill, is designed to change that course and the mark the beginning of the end of a global market of an outdated and obsolete poison. I hope my colleagues will support this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Muhammad Yunus. For those who don't already know, Dr. Yunus is a modest man of great ideas, now revered around the world, as the father of microcredit and the founder of the Grameen Bank. His concept of microcredit has helped thousands of people work their way out of poverty. For his work to beat global poverty, I am very proud to join my colleagues, Senators Durbin and Bennett, in introducing a bill to honor Dr. Yunus with a Congressional Gold Medal.

When I look at the success of Dr. Yunus's idea and the microenterprise programs it has inspired over the past 30 years, one thing that amazes me the most is that it all began with a loan of 27 U.S. dollars. The beauty of microcredit is that such a small amount of money can have such tremendous and lasting effects to foster entrepreneurship among those who would not qualify for typical bank loans. By offering loans at competitive interest rates, or no interest, Dr. Yunus's Grameen Bank has been able to give individuals suffering from poverty the power to determine their own futures.

Last year, Dr. Yunus and his Grameen Bank were honored with a Nobel Peace Prize for his economic imagination. Dr. Yunus's innovation and entrepreneurship are certainly commendable and worthy of such an honor, as well as the distinction of a Congressional Gold Medal. In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. Yunus challenged the world to think of an entrepreneur as not only being motivated by profit, but also by ``doing good to people and the world.''

The effectiveness of microcredit programs is evident by the success stories they have inspired all around the world. As chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I have seen first hand the power of microcredit in this country, through the SBA's--Small Business Administration's--microloan programs. In my home State of Massachusetts, Thondup and Dolma Tsering, two Tibetan refugees in the United States, were able to start their own restaurant in 2005, with assistance from the Massachusetts Small Business Development Center and financing from the Western Massachusetts Enterprise Fund. Through financing and support, otherwise not available to them from the banking community, they are now the successful owners of Lhasa Cafe in Northampton. As small business owners, the Tserings are socially responsible and support local farmers and their community.

From Dr. Yunus's first microloans to 42 entrepreneurs in Bangladesh in 1976, the concept of microcredit has come a long way. Here in the United States, where SBA has had a similar program since 1992, more than $328 million in microloans have been made to deserving entrepreneurs.

I have long been a supporter of funding microloan programs, which offer current and potential small business owners the opportunity to achieve financial independence, financial security, and dignity through work. Sometimes they use it to work their way out of poverty, but sometimes they use it to patch together income when they need more money, lose a job, want to buy a house or car, or maybe pay for college or send a child to college. These entrepreneurs create jobs, provide services and products to our communities, and generate tax revenue to benefit the economy. Funding microloan programs not only makes economic sense; it makes social sense as well.

In spite of growing support for microloan programs, and in spite of the

return on investment to our economy, microenterprise does not get the support in this country that it does in other countries. In 2005, the administration provided approximately $211 million for the development of foreign microenterprise programs through the Agency for International Development, USAID. In fiscal year 2006, we are told that the administration provided more than $54 million for microloans in Iraq:

The efforts of the U.S. government in its assistance to

Iraq have been broad based. . . For example, over $54 million

in micro-loans have been disbursed, resulting in 26,700 loans

in twelve cities, and the program is set to expand to even

more areas. Also, a Loan Guarantee Corporation is currently

being established to encourage private banks to make loans to

small businesses.--Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S.

Ambassador to Iraq, May 9, 2006.

And for fiscal year 2007, we are told that the administration is requesting supplemental funding for Iraq that includes at least $160 million for microloans.

We will help local leaders improve their capacity to govern

and deliver public services. Our economic efforts will be

more targeted on specific local needs with proven records of

success, like micro-credit programs. And we will engage with

leading private sector enterprises and other local

businesses, including the more promising state-owned firms,

to break the obstacles to growth.--Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice, Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the

administration's plan for Iraq, January 11, 2007.

At the same time, the President has proposed for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 eliminating all funding for the SBA's microloan programs.

Today I not only honor and recognize the genius of Dr. Yunus, but also call attention to President Bush's lack of support for U.S. microloans and call on the administration to reverse its policy. If we can support microloans in Baghdad, we should support microloans in Boston, and every other city that's home to a would-be entrepreneur.

I am honored to add my name in support of Dr. Muhammad Yunus, and I am gratified to see the support he has received among my colleagues. But I also implore my colleagues to pay tribute to American entrepreneurs and to fund the SBA's microloan program. We must honor Dr. Yunus's ingenuity with more than words; we must honor him with our actions.

Mr. President, on behalf of Hampstead, NH, middle school students, school board officials, board of selectmen, and residents, I rise to honor a fallen hero, U.S. Army Ranger CAPT Jonathan David Grassbaugh, by introducing a bill to designate the United States Postal Service facility at 59 Colby Corner in East Hampstead, NH, as the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Post Office.

Jon, as he was called by his family and friends, moved to East Hampstead, NH, from St. Marys, OH, in 1989. He attended Hampstead Central Elementary School and Hampstead Middle School, where his mother, Patricia, is principal.

Jon graduated high school from Phillips Exeter Academy, in Exeter, NH, where he was a 4-year honor student in the Class of 1999. Jon left a remarkable impression on the Phillips Exeter community; remembered for his manifestation of the motto ``Non Sibi'' or ``Not for Oneself,'' a Latin phrase inscribed on the Academy's seal. Jon exemplified his passion for life through his persistent dedication to his studies, tireless volunteer efforts in school and the local community, commitment to the academy's radio station, Grainger Observatory, and the school's Washington internship program.

Jon's illustrious high school years were prologue to a promising future, full of infinite potential. Jon enrolled at Johns Hopkins University, where he graduated in 2003, earning a bachelors degree in computer science from the renowned Whiting School of Engineering.

At a young age, Jon's family instilled in him the importance of volunteerism and service to the U.S. Jon's father, Mark, proudly served 3\1/2\ years as an Army Ranger during Vietnam, and his older brother, West Point alum and Dartmouth Medical School graduate, Army Captain Dr. Jason Grassbaugh, is currently serving as an orthopedic surgeon in Fort Lewis, WA. Jon continued this family tradition of service, joining the Johns Hopkins Army ROTC program, and eventually becoming battalion commander his senior year. He also became a proud member of the Pershing Rifles fraternal organization, captained the Ranger Challenge Team, and won the national two-man duet drill team competition.

In a storybook setting, Jon met Jenna Parkinson, a freshman ROTC cadet from Boxborough MA, during his senior year. Jon and Jenna slowly grew closer, watching movies together during spring break, sharing flights to and from school, and attending the military ball. A few short years later, Jon proposed to Jenna on April 30, 2005, and the young couple subsequently married on June 9, 2006, in a Cape Cod ceremony. Prior to their wedding day, Jon and Jenna filled out a questionnaire for their officiate, which asked, ``Where is a sacred spot, a place where you feel most connected, most at peace and most inspired?'' Jon's answer came in three loving words: ``With my wife.''

Following graduation, Jon completed U.S. Army Ranger School in April 2004 and served his country both at home and abroad. He was assigned to the 7th Cavalry in the Republic of South Korea and served as a member of the Army Hurricane Katrina Relief Team. Later, Jon was assigned to the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, NC, where he and the now U.S. Army 2nd Lieutenant Jenna Grassbaugh would reside.

Shortly after Jon and Jenna were married, he was deployed for a second tour of duty, in Iraq. Tragically, on April 7, 2007, Jon was one of four soldiers who died while conducting a combat logistics patrol in Zaganiyah, Iraq. Throughout Jon's distinguished military service, he received a number of accolades and commendations, including: the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Ranger Tab, Combat Action Badge, and Parachutist Badge.

Jon is remembered as a confident and mentally strong leader, whose poise under pressure, intelligence, compassion, and love for God, country and family transcends his passing. His valor on the field of battle was equally as impressive as his undying loyalty to and love for his squadron. One well-known anecdote recalls a combat operation in which Jon had pizza flown by helicopter from 100 kilometers away to where his troops were conducting combat operations in an effort to lift morale. Jon left a legacy that continues to inspire our Nation's future leaders from Hampstead and Exeter, NH, Johns Hopkins, and those he proudly served beside in Iraq.

On a deep and personal note, for those who had the sincere privilege and honor to meet Jon, it was evident his exuberance for life and new experiences, ingenuity, and academic acumen destined him for greatness. By the time of his death, Jon had achieved more than most individuals do in a lifetime, a testimonial to his family's love and guidance through his young life, and Jenna's warmth and support as he fought for our Nation.

Today, Jonathan Grassbaugh rests in peace at one of our Nation's most hallowed and sacred grounds, Arlington National Cemetery--his rightful place among generations of brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in defense of this country. His loved ones will forever remember him as a loving husband, son, brother, and friend. Let it be known, the citizens of New Hampshire and our Nation are eternally in debt to Jonathan David Grassbaugh, an honorable son of New Hampshire, an American Patriot, and a guardian of liberty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Madam Speaker, joined by Representatives Jerry Moran, Thornberry, Boswell, Tiahrt and Boyda, I am today introducing legislation which would make a variety of technical changes to the statute establishing the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.

The Eisenhower Memorial Commission was created by the U.S. Congress in 1999 as a bipartian commission for the purpose of considering and formulating plans for the location, design and construction of a permanent memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower to perpetuate his memory and his contributions to the United States. Since being fully appointed in 2001, the Commission considered 26 different sites in the District of Columbia. In 2005, it selected a site between the Department of Education and the National Air and Space Museum, two institutions resulting from and greatly influenced by President Eisenhower's leadership. In 2006, Congress approved the memorial's location within Area I, in compliance with the

Commemorative Works Act. The Commission secured full approval for the selected site following extensive review by the National Park Service, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts.

Since its inception, the Commission has also taken great care to study and analyze the Eisenhower legacy. It produced a report by leading scholars and experts on Eisenhower that provides a definitive statement on the transcending elements of Eisenhower's enduring legacy. He ranks as one of the preeminent figures in the global history of the 20th century. Dwight Eisenhower spent his entire life in public service. His most well-known contributions include serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in World War II and as 34th President of the United States, but Eisenhower also served as the first commander of NATO and as President of Columbia University. Dramatic changes occurred in America during his lifetime, many of which he participated in and influenced through his extraordinary leadership as President. Although Ike grew up before automobiles existed, he created the Interstate Highway System and took America into space. He created NASA, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Federal Aviation Administration. He added Hawaii and Alaska to the United States and ended the Korean War. President Eisenhower desegregated the District of Columbia and sent federal troops into Little Rock, AR to enforce school integration. He diffused international crises and inaugurated the national security policies that guided the nation for the next three decades, leading to the peaceful end of the Cold War. A career soldier, Eisenhower championed peace, freedom, justice and security, and as President he stressed the interdependence of those goals. He spent a lifetime fulfilling his duty to his country, always remembering to ask what's best for America.

Eisenhower's legacy provides hope to all of us--like him, through education and public service, we as a Nation and individually can rise to meet any challenge. The Eisenhower Memorial Commission now needs to move into the design phase. As design begins, the Commission's organization, specifically with regard to contracting and staffing, needs to be updated and revised to enable efficient management and responsible stewardship. This legislation provides for the necessary reorganization. The legislation enables the Commission to retain the services of full, part-time, and volunteer staff as government employees, without the restrictions of the competitive service requirements. It also provides the authority for the Commission's Executive Architect to manage technical and administrative aspects of design and construction. It provides for staff to be released on the completion of the memorial and enables the Commission to work in collaboration with federal agencies. In addition, the legislation will allow the Commission to receive direct appropriations, easing the burden on both the Commission and federal agencies that previously served as conduits for Commission funding. I have also enclosed a detailed justification of the proposed legislation for your review.

Very similar legislation, S. 890, has been introduced by Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who serves with me and Senator Ted Stevens on the Executive Committee of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. I am joined today in introducing this measure by Representatives Jerry Moran, Thornberry and Boswell, who serve as members of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, and by our fellow Kansans serving in the U.S. House, Representatives Tiahrt and Boyda.