Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Since the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry has worked tirelessly with me to address the problem of mental health care parity. Today, we unite yet again to achieve equality between mental and physical health services under Medicare. Mental illness ranks as the second leading reason that Americans lose healthy years of life to premature death or disability. The occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread, with nearly one in five Americans aged 55 and older experiencing specific disorders that are not a part of normal aging. In fact, older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and their risk increases with age, and is further exacerbated by impediments to treatment. It is critical to note that while Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, it also provides care for those with severe disabilities. In fact, mental disorders are the single most frequent cause of disability, affecting more than one out of four Medicare beneficiaries. So the problem of access to mental health treatment is a pressing one for Medicare. The good news is that, today, there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illness. The majority of people with mental disorders who receive proper treatment can lead productive lives. Yet Medicare pays far less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than it does for medical treatment for physical disabilities. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the cost of covered outpatient services, including doctor's visits, and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. However, this does not apply to outpatient mental health services; here Medicare law imposes a special limitation, which requires patients to pay a much higher copayment of 50 percent. Let me give an example of the current disparity in copayments. If a Medicare patient sees a doctor in an office for treatment of cancer, heart disease, or the flu, the patient must pay 20 percent of the fee for the visit. Yet if a Medicare patient sees a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional in an office for treatment of depression, schizophrenia, or any other type of mental illness, the patient must pay 50 percent of the fee. That impedes critically-needed treatment, creating disability and resulting in lives needlessly lost. Our bill will eliminate the barrier to access which the present discriminatory copayment imposes, by phasing out the disparate payment policy over a 6-year period. This will lower the copayment rate for mental health services from the current 50 percent to the standard 20 percent. This means that, in 2013, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment that is required of Medicare patients today who receive outpatient treatment for other illnesses. Our bill creates ``copayment equity'' for Medicare mental health services. It is time to end the distinction between physical and mental disorders under Medicare. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Kerry and myself in supporting the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007 for equal treatment of mental health services under Medicare.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Since the 107th Congress, Senator Kerry has worked tirelessly with me to address the problem of mental health care parity. Today, we unite yet again to achieve equality between mental and physical health services under Medicare. Mental illness ranks as the second leading reason that Americans lose healthy years of life to premature death or disability. The occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread, with nearly one in five Americans aged 55 and older experiencing specific disorders that are not a part of normal aging. In fact, older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and their risk increases with age, and is further exacerbated by impediments to treatment. It is critical to note that while Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, it also provides care for those with severe disabilities. In fact, mental disorders are the single most frequent cause of disability, affecting more than one out of four Medicare beneficiaries. So the problem of access to mental health treatment is a pressing one for Medicare. The good news is that, today, there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illness. The majority of people with mental disorders who receive proper treatment can lead productive lives. Yet Medicare pays far less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than it does for medical treatment for physical disabilities. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the cost of covered outpatient services, including doctor's visits, and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. However, this does not apply to outpatient mental health services; here Medicare law imposes a special limitation, which requires patients to pay a much higher copayment of 50 percent. Let me give an example of the current disparity in copayments. If a Medicare patient sees a doctor in an office for treatment of cancer, heart disease, or the flu, the patient must pay 20 percent of the fee for the visit. Yet if a Medicare patient sees a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional in an office for treatment of depression, schizophrenia, or any other type of mental illness, the patient must pay 50 percent of the fee. That impedes critically-needed treatment, creating disability and resulting in lives needlessly lost. Our bill will eliminate the barrier to access which the present discriminatory copayment imposes, by phasing out the disparate payment policy over a 6-year period. This will lower the copayment rate for mental health services from the current 50 percent to the standard 20 percent. This means that, in 2013, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment that is required of Medicare patients today who receive outpatient treatment for other illnesses. Our bill creates ``copayment equity'' for Medicare mental health services. It is time to end the distinction between physical and mental disorders under Medicare. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Kerry and myself in supporting the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007 for equal treatment of mental health services under Medicare.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr President, today I honor an exceptional small business from my home State of Maine that is striving to employ more Mainers and revive tourism in one of Maine's hidden natural treasures. The New England Outdoors Center of Millinocket is a multifaceted ecotourism and recreational sports business and a wonderful example of entrepreneurial spirit in Maine. Local residents of the Millinocket region and tourists, who come from far and wide to see Maine's splendor and beauty, enjoy the Outdoors Center's diversity of services. In addition, the Center's owner, Matt Polstein, is working to add a resort to his business which would bring additional jobs to the Katahdin region. The New England Outdoors Center is an all-season facility that consists of a snowmobile business, the River Drivers restaurant, and a white water rafting enterprise. The Outdoors Center provides a gateway to Baxter State Park and the spectacular Mount Katahdin, the Appalachian Trail's northern terminus. The Center has won numerous commendations throughout its decades of operation, including a Maine Tourism award. It is a member of the Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Tourism Association, the Maine Snowmobile Association, and many other groups. Matt Polstein and the New England Outdoors Center's endeavors greatly benefit the local economy, which has recently been suffering due to a slump in visitors to Baxter State Park. In light of this decline in tourism, Matt Polstein's vision of building the new Ktaadn Resorts on Hammond Ridge is particularly critical in bringing people back to the Katahdin region and to all of Maine. Mr. Polstein's $65 million proposal evidences his commitment and determination to create new jobs for Mainers and to contribute to the growth of Millinocket's regional economy. The plan has garnered the support of the Millinocket community and its leaders, as well as the unanimous endorsement of Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission, which oversees the state's planning and zoning for plantations, townships, and unorganized areas without local governance. This forward-thinking proposal for a new resort is one of the largest resort proposals in Maine's Unorganized Territory history--a true victory for all involved. Conscious of the environment, Mr. Polstein is seeking to grow crops and livestock for use at the resort and in the community. The new Ktaadn Resorts will be an extraordinary feat when finished, complete with a state-of-the-art conference center, a lodge, rental cabins, and restaurants. The Resort is expected to create at least 100 new jobs and to shed light on Millinocket as a hub of tourism in Maine and New England. It is vital that we respect our natural surroundings, and Matt Polstein's proposal does just that. It is a bright example of the kind of intelligent planning that benefits Maine's economy while protecting the State's natural environment. Mount Katahdin is a shining example of what makes Maine beautiful, and Mr. Polstein's dedication to the improvement of his community exemplifies what makes Maine people so special. I commend Matt Polstein for his public service as a city councillor in Millinocket, his current business ventures that provide accommodations and services to tourists year-round, and for his smart and bright entrepreneurial savvy with the future Ktaadn Resorts. I wish Mr. Polstein and everyone at the New England Outdoors Center continued prosperity, and a successful completion to the Ktaadn Resorts.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs each year. Today, I rise with Senators Kerry and Bennett to introduce legislation that would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new crisis. Over 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We have now experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums in 4 of the past 6 years. Small businesses face difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to their employees. The time to act is now. Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our Nation's uninsured population, 60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees or are self-employed. Furthermore, many of the small businesses whom we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far beyond their reach. That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Insurance Options Act of 2007. This bipartisan measure would establish a pilot, competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide educational resources and materials to small businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the Healthcare Leadership Council has found that following a brief education and counseling session, small businesses are up to 33 percent more likely to offer health insurance to their employees. Our bill capitalizes on the well-established national SBDC framework. SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service locations in every State and territory delivering management and technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners. Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration to provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country. No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than $300,000, and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs, participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions of existing health insurance options, including materials created by the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire economy. We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs each year. Today, I rise with Senators Kerry and Bennett to introduce legislation that would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new crisis. Over 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We have now experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums in 4 of the past 6 years. Small businesses face difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to their employees. The time to act is now. Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our Nation's uninsured population, 60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees or are self-employed. Furthermore, many of the small businesses whom we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far beyond their reach. That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Insurance Options Act of 2007. This bipartisan measure would establish a pilot, competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide educational resources and materials to small businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the Healthcare Leadership Council has found that following a brief education and counseling session, small businesses are up to 33 percent more likely to offer health insurance to their employees. Our bill capitalizes on the well-established national SBDC framework. SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service locations in every State and territory delivering management and technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners. Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration to provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country. No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than $300,000, and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs, participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions of existing health insurance options, including materials created by the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire economy. We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business community. 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 proudly join my friend and colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln in the introduction of the Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007. In March, I was able to visit one of Maine's returning soldiers who has been assigned outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We spoke about the many issues and obstacles faced by our wounded troops as they struggle not only to recover from their injuries, but to prepare themselves for their future. During our meeting, this soldier covered many of the pitfalls faced by troops as they confront the bewildering processes of medical and physical evaluation boards without the benefit of anyone to advocate on their behalf. In fact, he aptly described the process as an ``adversarial'' system that onerously demands wounded soldiers to provide the ``burden of proof'' for their claims. In response, we have crafted this legislation in order to remedy a variety of flaws that currently plague the military health care system, including: inequitable disability ratings, a lack of advocacy within military outpatient facilities, inadequate mental health treatment, and inefficient transition from the DOD to the VA. First off, our bill would address the concerns I have heard from a number of returning troops from my home state of Maine and across this Nation who have gone without the proper advocacy and case management for medical benefits during their stay at military outpatient facilities. It is inexcusable that our returning heroes are often forced to navigate the esoteric physical disability evaluation system, PDES, within an adversarial atmosphere. The measure we are proposing would require the Secretary of Defense to provide each recovering servicemember in a military medical treatment facility with a medical care manager who will assist him or her with all matters regarding their medical status, along with a caseworker who will assist each servicemember and his or her family in obtaining all the information necessary for transition, recovery, and benefits collection. Further, provisions we included will create a DOD- wide Ombudsmen Office to provide policy guidance to, and oversight of, ombudsman offices in all military departments and the medical system of the DOD. Only then, will our returning servicemembers recover within an atmosphere that is based upon advocacy. Additionally, recent news reports and independent analysis have revealed troubling statistics regarding rampant inaccuracies within the military disability ratings system. According to Pentagon data analyzed by the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, since 2000, 92.7 percent of all disability ratings handed out by physical evaluation boards, PEBs, have been 20 percent or lower. Under the current policy, those who receive disability ratings under 30 percent and have served less than 20 years of military service are discharged with only a severance check, deprived of full military retirement pay, life insurance, health insurance, and access to military commissaries. Further evidence of a troubled disability ratings system shows that since America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, fewer veterans have received disability ratings of 30 percent or more, inferring that the DOD may have lowered the ratings for injured troops who would have otherwise received a host of lifelong benefits. On top of that, it currently takes an average of 209 days for troops to complete the PDES process by receiving notification of potential discharge and a subsequent disability rating. As a means of fixing these blatant flaws within the military disability ratings system, this legislation consolidates the physical evaluation system by placing the informal and formal physical evaluation boards under one command, as a method of streamlining and expediting the process. Our troops deserve timely care and efficient treatment upon their return home, and therefore, no recovering servicemember should be forced to endure lengthy delays in a medical hold or holdover status due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The bill also requires that physicians preparing each individual medical case for all PEBs report multiple diagnosed medical impairments that, in concert, may deem a servicemember to be unfit for duty. Under the current system, the U.S. Army, for example, only rates physical impairments that individually cause a servicemember to be deemed unfit for duty, ultimately dismissing ailments that may significantly hinder a servicemember's ability to continue his or her service in the military or find gainful employment in the civilian sector. Over the past year, the American public has also become acutely aware of the effects of traumatic brain injury, TBI, which has become the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting thousands of returning servicemembers. Therefore, it is now more imperative than ever for both the DOD and the VA to implement mental health treatment policies that accurately diagnose and adequately treat debilitating mental health injuries among our injured troops. Our bill addresses these issues by including a provision that requires all servicemembers who are expected to deploy to a combat theater to receive a mental health assessment that tests their cognitive functioning within 120 days before deployment, a mental health assessment within 60 days after deployment, to include a comprehensive screening for mild, moderate, and severe cases of TBI. Additionally, all servicemembers will receive a third mental health assessment at the time of their predischarge physical. The measure we are putting forward today also aims to update the current disability ratings system used by the military and the VA to include the effects of TBI and post traumatic stress disorder, along with any other mental health disorders that may affect our Nation's returning warriors. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue a report to Congress detailing a plan to update the Veterans' Administration Schedule for Ratings Disabilities, VASRD, to align its disability ratings to more closely reflect the effects of mental halth disorders, including TBI and PTSD on the modern workforce. The Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007 also calls on the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to provide Congress with a report detailing plans to increase the role of eligible private sector rehabilitation providers for assisting the VA in providing comprehensive post acute inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for TBI and PTSD, if in certain instances the VA is unable to provide such services. The Veterans Health Administration is, unequivocally, the foremost expert in providing mental health treatment for our recovering servicemembers, yet in varying circumstances, the VA may require additional health care coverage in remote areas. All of our returning heroes, despite the severity of their mental health ailments, or their location geographically, deserve every available option for rehabilitative services, to ensure that they never go untreated. Additionally, to help ease the transition from the military health care system to the VA system, both the DOD and the VA must adopt and implement a unified electronic medical database. Interagency database compatibility would not only increase medical efficiency, but it would significantly ease the transition into civilian life for injured or retiring servicemembers who deserve timely and effective health care. Therefore, our legislation establishes and implements a single electronic military and medical record database within the DOD that will be used to track and record the medical status of each member of the Armed Forces in theater and throughout the military health care process, and will be accessible to the VA through the Joint Patient Tracking Application, JPTA. This electronic records system will be identical to the VistA system, currently used by the VA, which has served as a model of excellence for electronic medical databases among our Nation's health community. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our Nation holds for its servicemembers and veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. We must always remain cognizant of the wisdom laid forth by President George Washington, when he stated, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' At a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is now up to Congress to do everything in its power to answer the call of our men and women who have nobly served our Nation in uniform, to ensure that they receive the heroes' treatment they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her assistance in making this a stronger bill and bringing it before the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly join my friend and colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln in the introduction of the Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007. In March, I was able to visit one of Maine's returning soldiers who has been assigned outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We spoke about the many issues and obstacles faced by our wounded troops as they struggle not only to recover from their injuries, but to prepare themselves for their future. During our meeting, this soldier covered many of the pitfalls faced by troops as they confront the bewildering processes of medical and physical evaluation boards without the benefit of anyone to advocate on their behalf. In fact, he aptly described the process as an ``adversarial'' system that onerously demands wounded soldiers to provide the ``burden of proof'' for their claims. In response, we have crafted this legislation in order to remedy a variety of flaws that currently plague the military health care system, including: inequitable disability ratings, a lack of advocacy within military outpatient facilities, inadequate mental health treatment, and inefficient transition from the DOD to the VA. First off, our bill would address the concerns I have heard from a number of returning troops from my home state of Maine and across this Nation who have gone without the proper advocacy and case management for medical benefits during their stay at military outpatient facilities. It is inexcusable that our returning heroes are often forced to navigate the esoteric physical disability evaluation system, PDES, within an adversarial atmosphere. The measure we are proposing would require the Secretary of Defense to provide each recovering servicemember in a military medical treatment facility with a medical care manager who will assist him or her with all matters regarding their medical status, along with a caseworker who will assist each servicemember and his or her family in obtaining all the information necessary for transition, recovery, and benefits collection. Further, provisions we included will create a DOD- wide Ombudsmen Office to provide policy guidance to, and oversight of, ombudsman offices in all military departments and the medical system of the DOD. Only then, will our returning servicemembers recover within an atmosphere that is based upon advocacy. Additionally, recent news reports and independent analysis have revealed troubling statistics regarding rampant inaccuracies within the military disability ratings system. According to Pentagon data analyzed by the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, since 2000, 92.7 percent of all disability ratings handed out by physical evaluation boards, PEBs, have been 20 percent or lower. Under the current policy, those who receive disability ratings under 30 percent and have served less than 20 years of military service are discharged with only a severance check, deprived of full military retirement pay, life insurance, health insurance, and access to military commissaries. Further evidence of a troubled disability ratings system shows that since America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, fewer veterans have received disability ratings of 30 percent or more, inferring that the DOD may have lowered the ratings for injured troops who would have otherwise received a host of lifelong benefits. On top of that, it currently takes an average of 209 days for troops to complete the PDES process by receiving notification of potential discharge and a subsequent disability rating. As a means of fixing these blatant flaws within the military disability ratings system, this legislation consolidates the physical evaluation system by placing the informal and formal physical evaluation boards under one command, as a method of streamlining and expediting the process. Our troops deserve timely care and efficient treatment upon their return home, and therefore, no recovering servicemember should be forced to endure lengthy delays in a medical hold or holdover status due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The bill also requires that physicians preparing each individual medical case for all PEBs report multiple diagnosed medical impairments that, in concert, may deem a servicemember to be unfit for duty. Under the current system, the U.S. Army, for example, only rates physical impairments that individually cause a servicemember to be deemed unfit for duty, ultimately dismissing ailments that may significantly hinder a servicemember's ability to continue his or her service in the military or find gainful employment in the civilian sector. Over the past year, the American public has also become acutely aware of the effects of traumatic brain injury, TBI, which has become the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting thousands of returning servicemembers. Therefore, it is now more imperative than ever for both the DOD and the VA to implement mental health treatment policies that accurately diagnose and adequately treat debilitating mental health injuries among our injured troops. Our bill addresses these issues by including a provision that requires all servicemembers who are expected to deploy to a combat theater to receive a mental health assessment that tests their cognitive functioning within 120 days before deployment, a mental health assessment within 60 days after deployment, to include a comprehensive screening for mild, moderate, and severe cases of TBI. Additionally, all servicemembers will receive a third mental health assessment at the time of their predischarge physical. The measure we are putting forward today also aims to update the current disability ratings system used by the military and the VA to include the effects of TBI and post traumatic stress disorder, along with any other mental health disorders that may affect our Nation's returning warriors. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue a report to Congress detailing a plan to update the Veterans' Administration Schedule for Ratings Disabilities, VASRD, to align its disability ratings to more closely reflect the effects of mental halth disorders, including TBI and PTSD on the modern workforce. The Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007 also calls on the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to provide Congress with a report detailing plans to increase the role of eligible private sector rehabilitation providers for assisting the VA in providing comprehensive post acute inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for TBI and PTSD, if in certain instances the VA is unable to provide such services. The Veterans Health Administration is, unequivocally, the foremost expert in providing mental health treatment for our recovering servicemembers, yet in varying circumstances, the VA may require additional health care coverage in remote areas. All of our returning heroes, despite the severity of their mental health ailments, or their location geographically, deserve every available option for rehabilitative services, to ensure that they never go untreated. Additionally, to help ease the transition from the military health care system to the VA system, both the DOD and the VA must adopt and implement a unified electronic medical database. Interagency database compatibility would not only increase medical efficiency, but it would significantly ease the transition into civilian life for injured or retiring servicemembers who deserve timely and effective health care. Therefore, our legislation establishes and implements a single electronic military and medical record database within the DOD that will be used to track and record the medical status of each member of the Armed Forces in theater and throughout the military health care process, and will be accessible to the VA through the Joint Patient Tracking Application, JPTA. This electronic records system will be identical to the VistA system, currently used by the VA, which has served as a model of excellence for electronic medical databases among our Nation's health community. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our Nation holds for its servicemembers and veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. We must always remain cognizant of the wisdom laid forth by President George Washington, when he stated, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' At a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is now up to Congress to do everything in its power to answer the call of our men and women who have nobly served our Nation in uniform, to ensure that they receive the heroes' treatment they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her assistance in making this a stronger bill and bringing it before the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the successful adoption, moments ago, of the Stevens Amendment, which I have cosponsored. Its incorporation into the underlying bill clears the way for passage of the most significant fuel efficiency legislation the Senate has seriously considered in decades. If this legislation is eventually adopted by the full Congress, it will be the first time since 1975 that effective fuel efficiency legislation will have been enacted. First of all, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein, for her unrivaled leadership on the issue of fuel economy standards. We have worked together for 6 years to bolster CAFE standards and her commitment and passion for implementing critical and long-overdue changes has only grown. Our efforts have culminated this year in the introduction of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which is the key component of the underlying energy bill that currently sits before the Senate. All of us in this fight can be deeply appreciative of her voice and her tireless advocacy. I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Senator Ted Stevens, the author of this amendment, who has shown strong resolve on this issue by working to forge a compromise in the face of obstacles that often seemed insurmountable. I likewise want to thank and commend he chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, who has been instrumental both as an original cosponsor of the ``Ten in Ten'' bill and in deftly shepherding this bill through his committee and on the floor. Both gentlemen have again demonstrated that compromise is possible in this body and, without their bridge building, this day would not have been possible. Likewise, I want to recognize the principled leadership of Senators Lott, Carper, Alexander, Dorgan, Kerry, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Craig, all of whom have been critical in arriving at the consensus fuel efficiency legislation which we have before us today. The Senate now stands at a landmark moment. Thirty-two years have passed since Congress last took action on fuel economy standards, dating all the way back to 1975. It has been an entire generation since we said that--as a Nation--we can and must do better when it comes to saving fuel, saving money at the pump, and saving our environment. We have a lot of catching up to do. From 1985--the last time fuel economy standards were administratively increased for passenger vehicles--not by Congress, mind you, but administratively--oil imports have increased substantially from 4.3 million barrels a day to 13.8 million barrels a day, while our efficiency standards have virtually been stagnant. Indeed, over the past 25 years, fuel economy standards in the ``light truck'' category have only increased by a measly 4.7 miles per gallon--that's an average of two-tenths of a gallon improvement every year. Let me repeat that--it's taken a quarter of a century to wring a grand total of an additional 4.7 miles per gallon out of light trucks-- which currently include SUVs--for a current average of just 22.2 mpg. Meanwhile, think about this--in that same period of time since 1982, we have gone from land-lines to cell phones, from record players to CDs to Ipods, from big mainframe computers to minuscule handhelds, from encyclopedias to the Internet. So are we really to believe that over the next 10 years we can't manage an average of 10 additional miles per gallon of gasoline across America's entire fleet of passenger vehicles? Indeed, as a Nation built on innovation, built on the ``can-do'' spirit, we ought to be asking ourselves exactly how it is we couldn't have done better already--never mind questioning if we can do better in the future. That's why Senator Feinstein and I introduced legislation 6 years ago to close the SUV loophole, whereby SUVs were exempt from increased fuel efficiency requirements because they were classified as light trucks. It's also the reason we introduced this year a bipartisan measure to raise the average fuel economy standards for all vehicles, including SUVs, from a combined 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. As I will explain more in-depth, this legislation was carefully crafted to reflect not what we wish we could achieve, but what we know we can actually achieve. And I'm pleased that mandate was embraced and passed in the Senate Commerce Committee; now, it is vital that this provision in the underlying bill be preserved. Now, we have heard mischaracterizations of this measure--there have been omissions when it comes to describing this bill from those who oppose this measure--so let me just begin by stating plainly what this bill will do. Let me repeat, it requires that the average fuel economy standard for all vehicles under 8,500 pounds reach 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020. This bill has no such requirement for vehicles over 8,500 pounds. With respect to those vehicles, we allow the Secretary of EPA and Energy to determine an appropriate fuel efficiency improvement program. Again, there are no specific mandates for vehicles over 8,500 pounds-- just a direction that the standards are set at the maximum feasible level--we assign no numerical goal. Furthermore, we preserve the separate standard for fuel efficiency or the existing light truck category until 2011--recognizing that our manufacturers already have these vehicles in the works for the next three model years and it would be impossible, as a practical matter, for them to reengineer those vehicles at this juncture. After 2011, there will no longer be separate categories for light trucks and passenger vehicles, as the legislation switches to a fleet- wide standard based on vehicle attributes such as weight, as I just described. The world has already adopted this system because it is the most efficient framework. In fact, Taiwan, Japan, China, and South Korea have all established an attribute-based system that is either based on size of the engine or the weight of the vehicle. Now, the U.S. Congress must expand the framework of our attribute-based system to a structure that does not distinguish between passenger cars and light trucks but that does create an efficient and logical system. And let me emphasize, this is a change that automakers themselves have sought, because it provides them greater flexibility and choices across product lines to achieve the overall goal of a fleet-wide fuel efficiency standard. And let me elaborate on that point. Not only will manufacturers no longer have to contend with specific CAFE targets for specific vehicle segments, they won't even have to meet a specific target for their specific company. So how do we achieve the goal? That will be up to NHTSA to determine--not Congress--which is yet another change that the auto industry has sought. In other words, the industry has asked that the arbitrary and artificial lines between vehicle categories be eliminated; this bill does so. Even the alternative amendment filed by my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Arkansas, also incorporates our ``attribute-based'' approach precisely because that's what the industry is seeking. The industry has also asked that the experts--and not Congress--determine specifically how fuel economy standards are met, and by placing those decisions in the hands of NHTSA this bill does so on that score as well. The bottom line is, our bill provides our car companies with the flexibility they require. It doesn't place a mandate on vehicles over 8,500 pounds. It absolutely will not mean the end of light trucks. That is a red herring, Mr. President, and as I will detail in a few moments, the experts tell us that an additional 10 miles per gallon in 10 years over the entire American fleet of passenger vehicles is achievable. Of course, there are some who argue that Congress shouldn't even be in the business of setting these fuel economy requirements. Well, first of all, let's look back at what happened the last time Congress became involved. In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, Congress delivered a long-term significant increase in CAFE standards, which the New York Times has labeled as the most successful energy-saving measure this country has ever seen. The congressional challenge in 1975 worked to reduce our Nation's demand for energy. Does anyone seriously believe that the fuel economy for America's vehicles would have improved by 40 percent from 1978 to 1985--just a seven year period--if Congress hadn't stepped in? And just imagine where we'd be today if our energy independence efforts hadn't been dormant for the past 22 years. Moreover, there should be no question of the critical national security component to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Every day, we import 2.1 million barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf. Every day, our rising gas prices shift billions of dollars from the American consumer to authoritarian governments in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Reflecting the critical involvement of energy security in our national security, an organization called the Energy Security Leadership Council has formed in an effort to advance a fundamental shift of our national energy policy. The Energy Security Leadership Council is a nonpartisan organization that aims to build bipartisan support for policies to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy security. The Council is cochaired by Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president, and CEO of FedEx Corporation, and Retired General P.X. Kelley, the 8th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. The Membership consists of generals, admirals, and a former Secretary of the Navy. These are prominent, experienced, and highly credible leaders who understand the consequences of a reliance of foreign oil. The Energy Security Leadership Council has recommended for increasing fuel economy standards, and has endorsed this bill before us. They understand that our Nation must finally curtail our energy demand from these volatile regions. Mr. Smith testified just last week before the Senate Small Business Committee on the impact of rising gas prices. Noting that most oil shipments pass through a handful of maritime chokepoints such as the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, Mr. Smith observed that ``a mere 4 percent shortfall in global daily oil supplies could push the price of oil to more than $120 per barrel.'' What's the solution? According to the Energy Security Leadership Council, it is the bill before us today. Mr. Smith testified that ``the Senate has made great strides . . . through bipartisan support for'' the Ten-in-Ten bill. Mr. Smith further applauded our bill's use of an attribute-based system, noting that ``[t]his focus on attributes will also ensure that Americans will still be able to purchase different types of vehicles that cater to different transportation needs.'' He concluded, ``This is truly path-breaking legislation that merits broad support.'' Similarly, General Kelly has recently articulated, ``Current events only serve to confirm the unacceptable security risks created by our extraordinary level of oil dependence. Significantly, reducing the projected growth in U.S. oil consumption must become a compelling national priority.'' We ought to heed General Kelly's assessment and protect American security. I ask my colleagues, since when should Congress excuse itself from issues of vital national security? As the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report stated, the trade- offs on these vital matters ``rightly reside with elected officials''. Furthermore, they also conclude that it is ``appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.'' So we ought to get beyond the question of the proper role for Congress in this debate. We have an indispensable and undeniable role to play. Now, there are some who are concerned that we will inadvertently limit consumer choice, and let me say emphatically that we address those concerns. From 1978 to 1985 vehicles did not disappear from the road and during that period we witnessed a 40 percent increase in fuel economy. In fact, I would argue the American consumer finally had the opportunity to purchase the more fuel efficient cars they wish they had years earlier. But most importantly, let me reiterate this bill before the Senate does not mandate a certain fuel economy for any specific type of vehicle. Rather, it ensures that all of America's vehicles improve, in the aggregate, to the 35 mile per gallon standard while leaving the specifics on how to attain that requirement to the experts at the Department of Transportation and, specifically, the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. As a result, the engineers and economists at NHTSA are empowered to ensure that we accomplish the oil savings in the most efficient mechanism. And what does this mean for consumer choice? Because the bill doesn't mandate particular fuel economy targets for any specific category of passenger vehicle, there is greater flexibility in how the 35 mpg mandate can be reached. For example, the Secretary of Transportation may decide that pick-up trucks can't realistically achieve any substantial gains, but other segments have that capacity. Manufacturers will have greater latitude in how they contribute to the attainment of the overall target of 35 mpg. So this bill will not remove any vehicles from the road, but it will abate the sting at the pump. Our approach in this bill also addresses another concern we share-- that increased fuel efficiency doesn't translate to unaffordable sticker prices on America's new vehicles. Figuring in the cost-savings based on $1.50 per gallon of gas, the 2002 NAS study outlined that any initial cost in additional technology that saves gasoline would be recovered over the life of the vehicle. Of course, with fuel costs now more than double that amount, it's logical to assume the savings on fuel costs of more efficient vehicles will be even greater. In fact, even at $2.00 per gallon, the net consumer savings would be $20 billion in 2020. In short, as the Congressional Research Service summarizes the NAS report, it ``concluded that it was possible to achieve more than a 40 percent improvement in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10 to 15 year period at costs that would be recoverable over the lifetime of ownership.'' If there's any doubt about the importance of this, just take a look at the example of the impact of fuel economy--or the current lack thereof--on Pottle Transportation, based in Bangor, ME. Owner Barry Pottle stated this past year that their fuel economy has drifted from between 4 miles per gallon to 7 miles per gallon in the 25 years that he has led his company. I have a chart which indicates the gallons of consumption over a year for one vehicle and the corresponding cost as a result of current diesel prices. The aggregate cost over a year just for an increase of 2 miles per gallon is a staggering $20,000 for each truck. This bill will finally consider these heavy trucks in the fuel economy framework for the very first time in history. As indicated from Pottle Transportation, it is perfectly clear that these fuel economy increases will result in substantial dividends for America's small businesses. The fact is that the current system does not provide fuel efficient vehicles on the market for large commercial and heavy duty trucks greater than 8,500 pounds. Just last week before the Senate Small Business Committee, Janet Myhre of Chuckals a company that distributes office products, stated that ``fuel cost impact each and every transaction that our organization manages and is the third largest expense item on our financial statement.'' Ms. Myhre was then asked if the company had considered switching to more efficient vehicles or alternative vehicles for their delivery trucks to minimize fuel costs. Ms. Myhre responded that Chuckals had investigated the market and found that there were ``no commercial options'' available for these vehicles. The market has not provided companies with the options of utilizing fuel efficient vehicles and for the sake of our Nation's small businesses, this Congress must begin to increase standards for vehicles over 8,500 pounds. Still others have argued that this bill would place our domestic automobile manufacturers at an unacceptable disadvantage, but that is simply not the case it would be regrettable to view this debate in terms of fuel efficiency versus the future of our auto industry. When did energy independence and the strength of our domestic companies become mutually exclusive? For those who say our proposal is unrealistic and unreachable, the National Academy of Sciences reported 5 years ago that it is feasible to reach a 40 percent increase in fuel economy in 15 years--and that is with existing technology. Relatively simple improvements such as hybrid technologies, variable valve engines, high strength steel and aluminum, and continuously variable transmissions are all advancements the experts say could be implemented now. So do we really want to argue we don't have the technological wherewithal to make our vehicles travel more miles per gallon? Is it really the American Way to say, ``We can't do that?'' To the contrary, we should have already witnessed progress in these areas. If we had, perhaps our auto makers would be in better financial shape today. In fact, I certainly wish it were an American automaker who had recently announced surpassing the one million mark in sales of hybrids. In fact, in 2006, Toyota's Prius was the company's third best-selling passenger car. So someone out there must want to buy more efficient vehicles. Talk about providing consumer choice, if anything consumers will have more choices for more cost-effective cars and SUVs and light trucks. Indeed, there are auto company business models that have demonstrated that consumers value fuel economy. In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on March 14 of this year, Toyota's North American president, James Press, remarked, ``2007 marks the 10th year of the Prius, our first hybrid. I am happy to say the introduction of Prius was a sound business decision.'' Furthermore, let me reiterate, we do not mandate any fuel economy increase for any specific model or any specific car company. Rather, we crafted the legislation so that the entirety of America's passenger fleet--cars, light trucks, and SUVs--must increase from an average of 25.2 miles per gallon now to an average of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. What we don't mandate is how exactly we get there. Right now, each company is required to meet a corporate average fuel economy. Currently those standards are 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks and 27.5 for passenger vehicles. However, the problem with fuel economy standards does not reside in one company; it exists throughout the entire transportation sector. As a result, we initiated a fleet- wide solution rather than a piece-meal, company-by-company approach. In fact, the corporate average fuel economy standard actually ceases to exist under this bill; rather, it focuses results for the entire industry--a fleet wide average as opposed to a corporate average. This is a much broader and more flexible framework that will help domestic automakers. Indeed, some opponents have maintained that any legislation must not be ``discriminatory against our companies,'' and that the ``numbers should be set. . .by experts who understand what can and cannot be done from a technology standpoint.'' Well, we couldn't agree more--and, once again, this is exactly what our initiative accomplishes by leaving the details to the experts at NHTSA. Our bill ensures that NHTSA will establish a mathematical function that alters fuel economy requirements based on attributes, like weight. Because I agree that companies that focus on larger vehicles should not be unfairly punished, we have provided maximum latitude to preserve our domestic manufacturers, foster consumer choice, and improve fuel economy. The bottom line is, this measure navigates the narrow waters between doing less than we should, and more than we realistically can. In contrast, the amendment advanced by opponents of this legislation would only raise standards to an estimated fleetwide average of 30.6 by 2020. Furthermore, their proposal retains rigid categories for cars and light trucks and assigns different efficiency targets for each--36 miles per gallon by 2022 for cars, and 30 miles per gallon by 2025 for trucks. But if you calculate for the entire U.S. fleet overall, accounting for the number of vehicles in each category estimated to be on the road at that time, you arrive at 30.6 miles per gallon by 2020 under this amendment. In other words, the proposal advanced by my colleague from Arkansas is a 5 mpg increase in 10 years, while our proposal is 10 miles per gallon in 10 years. And at the end of the day, the amendment would save, at best, merely 400,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020--accounting for just 3 percent of our daily import of oil--a mere drop in the bucket. So the ramifications between the proposals are significant, with ours saving 1.3 million barrels each day by 2020. Furthermore, in roughly 2023 this bill will save 2.1 million barrels of oil each day-- the equivalent to what we are currently importing from the Persian Gulf. Mr. President. This is clearly not a time for timidity. The current gas prices in Presque Isle, ME, right now is $3.13; in Arkansas, $2.99; in North Dakota, $3.14. These prices have and are continuing to raise transportation costs and the price of goods and services. Lower-income families and small businesses are financially strained beyond their capacity. It's been estimated that every time oil prices increase 10 percent, 150,000 Americans lose their job. And the critical relevance to our environment is unambiguous, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this year dispelling any doubt about the reality of human induced climate change, and the reality that while the U.S. represents 4.6 percent of the world's population, we emit 23 percent of the planet's CO2. Our legislation would remove 358 million metric tons of global warming emissions in 2025 alone. This is nearly the same amount that India's entire economy current emits. As the Washington Post stated just yesterday in advocating for this bill, ``There's a climate crisis brewing, and the transportation sector, which accounts for 33 percent of global warming pollution, must do its part to combat.'' Mr. President, shouldn't we be leaving a better legacy than that? Shouldn't we be striving to challenge and harness the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that built America to the greatest extent possible, rather than settling for less? Just look at where our Nation has come with cell phones. This technological revolution has occurred, while our fuel economy standards have stagnated. We can do better. The underlying bill does do better while providing an achievable solution. I applaud today's result and look forward to continuing to push for full adoption of this legislation into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly join my friend and colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln in the introduction of the Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007. In March, I was able to visit one of Maine's returning soldiers who has been assigned outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We spoke about the many issues and obstacles faced by our wounded troops as they struggle not only to recover from their injuries, but to prepare themselves for their future. During our meeting, this soldier covered many of the pitfalls faced by troops as they confront the bewildering processes of medical and physical evaluation boards without the benefit of anyone to advocate on their behalf. In fact, he aptly described the process as an ``adversarial'' system that onerously demands wounded soldiers to provide the ``burden of proof '' for their claims. In response, we have crafted this legislation in order to remedy a variety of flaws that currently plague the military health care system, including: Inequitable disability ratings, a lack of advocacy within military outpatient facilities, inadequate mental health treatment, and inefficient transition from the DOD to the VA. First off, our bill would address the concerns I have heard from a number of returning troops from my home State of Maine and across this Nation who have gone without the proper advocacy and case management for medical benefits during their stay at military outpatient facilities. It is inexcusable that our returning heroes are often forced to navigate the esoteric physical disability evaluation system, PDES, within an adversarial atmosphere. The measure we are proposing would require the Secretary of Defense to provide each recovering servicemember in a military medical treatment facility with a medical care manager who will assist him or her with all matters regarding their medical status, along with a caseworker who will assist each servicemember and his or her family in obtaining all the information necessary for transition, recovery, and benefits collection. Further, provisions we included will create a DOD- wide ombudsmen office to provide policy guidance to, and oversight of, ombudsman offices in all military departments and the medical system of the DOD. Only then, will our returning servicemembers recover within an atmosphere that is based upon advocacy. Additionally, recent news reports and independent analysis have revealed troubling statistics regarding rampant inaccuracies within the military disability ratings system. According to Pentagon data analyzed by the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, since 2000, 92.7 percent of all disability ratings handed out by physical evaluation boards, PEBs, have been 20 percent or lower. Under the current policy, those who receive disability ratings under 30 percent and have served less than 20 years of military service are discharged with only a severance check, deprived of full military retirement pay, life insurance, health insurance, and access to military commissaries. Further evidence of a troubled disability ratings system shows that since America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, fewer veterans have received disability ratings of 30 percent or more, inferring that the DOD may have lowered the ratings for injured troops who would have otherwise received a host of lifelong benefits. On top of that, it currently takes an average of 209 days for troops to complete the PDES process by receiving notification of potential discharge and a subsequent disability rating. As a means of fixing these blatant flaws within the military disability ratings system, this legislation consolidates the physical evaluation system by placing the informal and formal physical evaluation boards under one command, as a method of streamlining and expediting the process. Our troops deserve timely care and efficient treatment upon their return home, and therefore, no recovering servicemember should be forced to endure lengthy delays in a medical hold or holdover status due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The bill also requires that physicians preparing each individual medical case for all physical evaluation boards report multiple diagnosed medical impairments that, in concert, may deem a servicemember to be unfit for duty. Under the current system, the U.S. Army, for example, only rates physical impairments that individually, cause a servicemember to be deemed unfit for duty, ultimately dismissing ailments that may significantly hinder a servicemember's ability to continue his or her service in the military or find gainful employment in the civilian sector. Over the past year, the American public has also become acutely aware of the effects of traumatic brain injury, TBI, which has become the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting thousands of returning servicemembers. Therefore, it is now more imperative than ever for both the DOD and the VA to implement mental health treatment policies that accurately diagnose and adequately treat debilitating mental health injuries among our injured troops. Our bill addresses these issues by including a provision that requires all servicemembers who are expected to deploy to a combat theater to receive a mental health assessment that tests their cognitive functioning within 120 days before deployment, a mental health assessment within 60 days after deployment, to include a comprehensive screening for mild, moderate, and severe cases of TBI. Additionally, all servicemembers will receive a third mental health assessment at the time of their predischarge physical. The measure we are putting forward today also aims to update the current disability ratings system used by the military and the VA to include the effects of TBI and posttraumatic stress disorder, along with any other mental health disorders that may affect our Nation's returning warriors. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue a report to Congress detailing a plan to update the Veteran's Administration Schedule for Ratings Disabilities, VASRD, to align its disability ratings to more closely reflect the effects of mental health disorders, including TBI and PTSD on the modern workforce. The Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007 also calls on the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to provide Congress with a report detailing plans to increase the role of eligible private sector rehabilitation providers for assisting the VA in providing comprehensive post acute inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for TBI and PTSD, if in certain instances, the VA is unable to provide such services. The Veterans Health Administration is, unequivocally, the foremost expert in providing mental health treatment for our recovering servicemembers, yet in varying circumstances, the VA may require additional health care coverage in remote areas. All of our returning heroes, despite the severity of their mental health ailments, or their location geographically, deserve every available option for rehabilitative services, to ensure that they never go untreated. Additionally, to help ease the transition from the military health care system to the VA system, both the DOD and the VA must adopt and implement a unified electronic medical database. Interagency database compatibility would not only increase medical efficiency, but it would significantly ease the transition into civilian life for injured or retiring servicemembers who deserve timely and effective health care. Therefore, our legislation establishes and implements a single electronic military and medical record database within the DOD that will be used to track and record the medical status of each member of the Armed Forces in theater and throughout the military health care process, and will be accessible to the VA through the joint patient tracking application, JPTA. This electronic records system will be identical to the VistA system, currently used by the VA, which has served as a model of excellence for electronic medical databases among our Nation's health community. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our Nation holds for its servicemembers and veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. We must always remain cognizant of the wisdom laid forth by President George Washington, when he stated, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' At a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is now up to Congress to do everything in its power to answer the call of our men and women who have nobly served our Nation in uniform, to ensure that they receive the heroes treatment they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her assistance in making this a stronger bill and bringing it before the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize and improve the U.S. Small Business Administration's--SBA--Entrepreneurial Development Programs. I have long fought to expand the power and reach of the SBA's entrepreneurial development tools, which are used by millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses across the United States. These programs demonstrate how Congress can play a positive role in enhancing private- sector financing for start-up companies. We must continue to strengthen these core SBA programs because they have proven invaluable in aiding the efforts and dreams of America's entrepreneurs. The bill which I am cosponsoring today is the product of the type of bipartisan work the Small Business Committee has come to be known for. The provisions contained in this legislation are a compilation of ideas and initiatives put forward by myself, Chairman Kerry, and other Committee members. Much of the language in the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007 was contained in my SBA Reauthorization and Improvements Act passed unanimously by the Small Business Committee during the 109th Congress. Unfortunately, this bipartisan bill never passed the Senate. Since 1980, Small Business Development Centers--SBDCs--have been essential in the delivery of management and technical counseling assistance and educational programs to prospective and existing small business owners. Since its inception, the SBDC program has served over 11 million clients with new business starts, sustainability programs for struggling firms, and expansion plans for growth firms. For every dollar spent on the SBDC program, approximately $2.66 in tax revenue is generated. An example of the local value of the SBDC program is found in my home State of Maine, where SBDCs invested more than 10,000 hours in counseling to 3,000 clients in 2005. The economic benefits of these services on the economy in Maine was demonstrated by a recent study of the Maine SBDCs that showed: No. 1, long-term clients of the Maine SBDC generated $44 million in incremental sales and 908 new jobs because of SBDC counseling assistance; and No. 2, the total amount of tax revenue generated as a result of counseling 5 or more hours is approximately $3.0 million in State taxes and $1.58 million in Federal tax revenues. The Women's Business Center--WBC--program, established by Congress in 1988, promotes the growth of women-owned businesses through business training and technical assistance, and provides access to credit and capital, Federal contracts, and international trade opportunities. The WBC program served more than 144,000 clients across the country last year, providing help with financial management, procurement training, marketing and technical assistance. WBCs also provide specialized programs that include mentoring in various languages, Internet training, issues facing displaced workers, and rural home-based entrepreneurs. According to the SBA's 2008 budget submission, WBCs were responsible for creating or retaining over 6,800 jobs nationwide. I take great pride in the fact that my own State of Maine leads the way for women-owned businesses. Today, there are more than 63,000 women- owned firms in Maine, employing over 75,000 Mainers and generating more than $9 billion in sales. We must all be committed to multiplying that story of success in every State in America. Service Corps of Retired Executives--SCORE--is a nonprofit association that matches business-management counselors with small business clients. SCORE volunteer counselors share their management and technical expertise with both existing and prospective small business owners. With its 10,500 member volunteer association sponsored by the SBA, and more than 389 service delivery points and a Web site, SCORE provides counseling to small businesses nationwide. The National SCORE organization delivers its services of business and technical assistance through a national network of chapters, an Internet counseling site, partnerships with SBA, the SBDCs and WBCs, and with the public/private sector. In 2006, SCORE counseled and trained over 300,000 clients. The bill being introduced today builds upon the aforementioned successes of SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs, which counsels over 1.2 million small businesses and entrepreneurs each year through the expertise of the trained resource partners located across America. In addition to reauthorizing SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs and increasing funding levels, this bill also addresses the crisis small businesses face when it comes to securing quality, affordable health insurance. In 4 of the past 5 years, health insurance costs have increased by double-digit percentage levels. This has led to a disturbing trend of fewer and fewer small businesses being able to offer health insurance to their employees. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that only 47 percent of our Nation's smallest businesses--with less than 10 employees--are able to offer health insurance as a workplace benefit. In stark contrast, health insurance is nearly universally offered at larger businesses. A key provision in this bill would establish a 4-year, pilot grant program to provide information, counseling, and educational materials to small businesses, through the well-established national framework of SBDCs. Recent research conducted by the non-partisan Healthcare Leadership Council found that with a short educational and counseling session, small businesses were up to 33 percent more likely to offer health insurance to their employees. My proposal is based on the Small Business Health Education and Awareness Act, which I introduced in the 109th Congress with Senator Bennett, and plan to reintroduce this session with Senators Kerry and Bennett. Most American workers are employed by small and medium sized enterprises. It is these businesses that account for nearly 98 percent of the growth in exporter population--and are among the major beneficiaries when foreign barriers are reduced. Additionally, 97 percent of exporters are small businesses. Over the last decade, the number of exports from small businesses increased by more than 250 percent. Small businesses account for almost $300 billion of yearly export sales--nearly one-third of total U.S. exports. This bill establishes an Associate Administrator for International Trade, and expands the trade distribution network to include the United States Export Assistance Centers USEACs. In addition, this section ensures that all our Nation's small exporters have access to export financing. This provision establishes a floor of international finance specialists at level SBA had in January 2003. Finally, this provision increases the maximum loan guarantee amount to $2.75 million and specifies that the loan cap for international trade loans--ITLs--is $3.67 million, as well as sets out that working capital is an eligible use for loan proceeds. The bill also makes ITLs consistent with regular SBA 7(a) loans in terms of allowing the same collateral and refinancing terms as with regular 7(a) loans. The SBA's entrepreneurial development programs provide tremendous value for a relatively small investment. I am committed to ensuring that Americans have the necessary resources to start, grow, and develop a business. I believe that it is our duty to do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly join my friend and colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln in the introduction of the Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007. In March, I was able to visit one of Maine's returning soldiers who has been assigned outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We spoke about the many issues and obstacles faced by our wounded troops as they struggle not only to recover from their injuries, but to prepare themselves for their future. During our meeting, this soldier covered many of the pitfalls faced by troops as they confront the bewildering processes of medical and physical evaluation boards without the benefit of anyone to advocate on their behalf. In fact, he aptly described the process as an ``adversarial'' system that onerously demands wounded soldiers to provide the ``burden of proof '' for their claims. In response, we have crafted this legislation in order to remedy a variety of flaws that currently plague the military health care system, including: Inequitable disability ratings, a lack of advocacy within military outpatient facilities, inadequate mental health treatment, and inefficient transition from the DOD to the VA. First off, our bill would address the concerns I have heard from a number of returning troops from my home State of Maine and across this Nation who have gone without the proper advocacy and case management for medical benefits during their stay at military outpatient facilities. It is inexcusable that our returning heroes are often forced to navigate the esoteric physical disability evaluation system, PDES, within an adversarial atmosphere. The measure we are proposing would require the Secretary of Defense to provide each recovering servicemember in a military medical treatment facility with a medical care manager who will assist him or her with all matters regarding their medical status, along with a caseworker who will assist each servicemember and his or her family in obtaining all the information necessary for transition, recovery, and benefits collection. Further, provisions we included will create a DOD- wide ombudsmen office to provide policy guidance to, and oversight of, ombudsman offices in all military departments and the medical system of the DOD. Only then, will our returning servicemembers recover within an atmosphere that is based upon advocacy. Additionally, recent news reports and independent analysis have revealed troubling statistics regarding rampant inaccuracies within the military disability ratings system. According to Pentagon data analyzed by the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, since 2000, 92.7 percent of all disability ratings handed out by physical evaluation boards, PEBs, have been 20 percent or lower. Under the current policy, those who receive disability ratings under 30 percent and have served less than 20 years of military service are discharged with only a severance check, deprived of full military retirement pay, life insurance, health insurance, and access to military commissaries. Further evidence of a troubled disability ratings system shows that since America went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, fewer veterans have received disability ratings of 30 percent or more, inferring that the DOD may have lowered the ratings for injured troops who would have otherwise received a host of lifelong benefits. On top of that, it currently takes an average of 209 days for troops to complete the PDES process by receiving notification of potential discharge and a subsequent disability rating. As a means of fixing these blatant flaws within the military disability ratings system, this legislation consolidates the physical evaluation system by placing the informal and formal physical evaluation boards under one command, as a method of streamlining and expediting the process. Our troops deserve timely care and efficient treatment upon their return home, and therefore, no recovering servicemember should be forced to endure lengthy delays in a medical hold or holdover status due to bureaucratic inefficiencies. The bill also requires that physicians preparing each individual medical case for all physical evaluation boards report multiple diagnosed medical impairments that, in concert, may deem a servicemember to be unfit for duty. Under the current system, the U.S. Army, for example, only rates physical impairments that individually, cause a servicemember to be deemed unfit for duty, ultimately dismissing ailments that may significantly hinder a servicemember's ability to continue his or her service in the military or find gainful employment in the civilian sector. Over the past year, the American public has also become acutely aware of the effects of traumatic brain injury, TBI, which has become the signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, affecting thousands of returning servicemembers. Therefore, it is now more imperative than ever for both the DOD and the VA to implement mental health treatment policies that accurately diagnose and adequately treat debilitating mental health injuries among our injured troops. Our bill addresses these issues by including a provision that requires all servicemembers who are expected to deploy to a combat theater to receive a mental health assessment that tests their cognitive functioning within 120 days before deployment, a mental health assessment within 60 days after deployment, to include a comprehensive screening for mild, moderate, and severe cases of TBI. Additionally, all servicemembers will receive a third mental health assessment at the time of their predischarge physical. The measure we are putting forward today also aims to update the current disability ratings system used by the military and the VA to include the effects of TBI and posttraumatic stress disorder, along with any other mental health disorders that may affect our Nation's returning warriors. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to issue a report to Congress detailing a plan to update the Veteran's Administration Schedule for Ratings Disabilities, VASRD, to align its disability ratings to more closely reflect the effects of mental health disorders, including TBI and PTSD on the modern workforce. The Servicemembers' Healthcare Benefits and Rehabilitation Enhancement Act of 2007 also calls on the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to provide Congress with a report detailing plans to increase the role of eligible private sector rehabilitation providers for assisting the VA in providing comprehensive post acute inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation for TBI and PTSD, if in certain instances, the VA is unable to provide such services. The Veterans Health Administration is, unequivocally, the foremost expert in providing mental health treatment for our recovering servicemembers, yet in varying circumstances, the VA may require additional health care coverage in remote areas. All of our returning heroes, despite the severity of their mental health ailments, or their location geographically, deserve every available option for rehabilitative services, to ensure that they never go untreated. Additionally, to help ease the transition from the military health care system to the VA system, both the DOD and the VA must adopt and implement a unified electronic medical database. Interagency database compatibility would not only increase medical efficiency, but it would significantly ease the transition into civilian life for injured or retiring servicemembers who deserve timely and effective health care. Therefore, our legislation establishes and implements a single electronic military and medical record database within the DOD that will be used to track and record the medical status of each member of the Armed Forces in theater and throughout the military health care process, and will be accessible to the VA through the joint patient tracking application, JPTA. This electronic records system will be identical to the VistA system, currently used by the VA, which has served as a model of excellence for electronic medical databases among our Nation's health community. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our Nation holds for its servicemembers and veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. We must always remain cognizant of the wisdom laid forth by President George Washington, when he stated, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' At a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is now up to Congress to do everything in its power to answer the call of our men and women who have nobly served our Nation in uniform, to ensure that they receive the heroes treatment they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for her assistance in making this a stronger bill and bringing it before the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize and improve the U.S. Small Business Administration's--SBA--Entrepreneurial Development Programs. I have long fought to expand the power and reach of the SBA's entrepreneurial development tools, which are used by millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses across the United States. These programs demonstrate how Congress can play a positive role in enhancing private- sector financing for start-up companies. We must continue to strengthen these core SBA programs because they have proven invaluable in aiding the efforts and dreams of America's entrepreneurs. The bill which I am cosponsoring today is the product of the type of bipartisan work the Small Business Committee has come to be known for. The provisions contained in this legislation are a compilation of ideas and initiatives put forward by myself, Chairman Kerry, and other Committee members. Much of the language in the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007 was contained in my SBA Reauthorization and Improvements Act passed unanimously by the Small Business Committee during the 109th Congress. Unfortunately, this bipartisan bill never passed the Senate. Since 1980, Small Business Development Centers--SBDCs--have been essential in the delivery of management and technical counseling assistance and educational programs to prospective and existing small business owners. Since its inception, the SBDC program has served over 11 million clients with new business starts, sustainability programs for struggling firms, and expansion plans for growth firms. For every dollar spent on the SBDC program, approximately $2.66 in tax revenue is generated. An example of the local value of the SBDC program is found in my home State of Maine, where SBDCs invested more than 10,000 hours in counseling to 3,000 clients in 2005. The economic benefits of these services on the economy in Maine was demonstrated by a recent study of the Maine SBDCs that showed: No. 1, long-term clients of the Maine SBDC generated $44 million in incremental sales and 908 new jobs because of SBDC counseling assistance; and No. 2, the total amount of tax revenue generated as a result of counseling 5 or more hours is approximately $3.0 million in State taxes and $1.58 million in Federal tax revenues. The Women's Business Center--WBC--program, established by Congress in 1988, promotes the growth of women-owned businesses through business training and technical assistance, and provides access to credit and capital, Federal contracts, and international trade opportunities. The WBC program served more than 144,000 clients across the country last year, providing help with financial management, procurement training, marketing and technical assistance. WBCs also provide specialized programs that include mentoring in various languages, Internet training, issues facing displaced workers, and rural home-based entrepreneurs. According to the SBA's 2008 budget submission, WBCs were responsible for creating or retaining over 6,800 jobs nationwide. I take great pride in the fact that my own State of Maine leads the way for women-owned businesses. Today, there are more than 63,000 women- owned firms in Maine, employing over 75,000 Mainers and generating more than $9 billion in sales. We must all be committed to multiplying that story of success in every State in America. Service Corps of Retired Executives--SCORE--is a nonprofit association that matches business-management counselors with small business clients. SCORE volunteer counselors share their management and technical expertise with both existing and prospective small business owners. With its 10,500 member volunteer association sponsored by the SBA, and more than 389 service delivery points and a Web site, SCORE provides counseling to small businesses nationwide. The National SCORE organization delivers its services of business and technical assistance through a national network of chapters, an Internet counseling site, partnerships with SBA, the SBDCs and WBCs, and with the public/private sector. In 2006, SCORE counseled and trained over 300,000 clients. The bill being introduced today builds upon the aforementioned successes of SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs, which counsels over 1.2 million small businesses and entrepreneurs each year through the expertise of the trained resource partners located across America. In addition to reauthorizing SBA's Entrepreneurial Development programs and increasing funding levels, this bill also addresses the crisis small businesses face when it comes to securing quality, affordable health insurance. In 4 of the past 5 years, health insurance costs have increased by double-digit percentage levels. This has led to a disturbing trend of fewer and fewer small businesses being able to offer health insurance to their employees. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that only 47 percent of our Nation's smallest businesses--with less than 10 employees--are able to offer health insurance as a workplace benefit. In stark contrast, health insurance is nearly universally offered at larger businesses. A key provision in this bill would establish a 4-year, pilot grant program to provide information, counseling, and educational materials to small businesses, through the well-established national framework of SBDCs. Recent research conducted by the non-partisan Healthcare Leadership Council found that with a short educational and counseling session, small businesses were up to 33 percent more likely to offer health insurance to their employees. My proposal is based on the Small Business Health Education and Awareness Act, which I introduced in the 109th Congress with Senator Bennett, and plan to reintroduce this session with Senators Kerry and Bennett. Most American workers are employed by small and medium sized enterprises. It is these businesses that account for nearly 98 percent of the growth in exporter population--and are among the major beneficiaries when foreign barriers are reduced. Additionally, 97 percent of exporters are small businesses. Over the last decade, the number of exports from small businesses increased by more than 250 percent. Small businesses account for almost $300 billion of yearly export sales--nearly one-third of total U.S. exports. This bill establishes an Associate Administrator for International Trade, and expands the trade distribution network to include the United States Export Assistance Centers USEACs. In addition, this section ensures that all our Nation's small exporters have access to export financing. This provision establishes a floor of international finance specialists at level SBA had in January 2003. Finally, this provision increases the maximum loan guarantee amount to $2.75 million and specifies that the loan cap for international trade loans--ITLs--is $3.67 million, as well as sets out that working capital is an eligible use for loan proceeds. The bill also makes ITLs consistent with regular SBA 7(a) loans in terms of allowing the same collateral and refinancing terms as with regular 7(a) loans. The SBA's entrepreneurial development programs provide tremendous value for a relatively small investment. I am committed to ensuring that Americans have the necessary resources to start, grow, and develop a business. I believe that it is our duty to do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I recognize an outstanding, family-owned small business from my home State of Maine that recently received the Gannett Family Business of the Year Award from the University of Southern Maine's Institute for Family-Owned Business. A promotional products distributor, Geiger Brothers of Lewiston has been in operation since 1878. Incredibly, the Geiger family has been in charge of the business for the entire time--a total of four generation. Geiger Brothers was originally founded in Newark, NJ, with a staff of four, two of whom were Geiger brothers. Since then, Geiger Brothers has undergone dramatic transformations, moving to Maine over half a century ago, and expanding to 500 employees between the Lewiston office and several field offices. While the Geiger name may not jump out at people from outside of Maine, the name ``Farmers' Almanac'' is universally known. Published yearly, the ``Farmers' Almanac'' is famous for its weather forecasts, gardening tips, and recipe suggestions. It is a source of great pride for my home State of Maine that Geiger Brothers publishes the ``Farmers' Almanac.'' It is no surprise that Geiger Brothers has won the Gannett Family Business of the Year Award. In fact, there is no lack of accomplishment or recognition in Geiger's history. The recipient of the Margaret Chase Smith Maine Quality Award, the FedEx Gold Level Supplier, and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce Maine Investors Award, Geiger's list of commendations recently grew to include the Advertising Specialty Institute's Family Business of the Year and a 2006 Best Places To Work In Maine award. In addition to publishing the world-renowned ``Farmers' Almanac,'' Geiger Brothers has consistently lived by a philosophy of community service. When, in 1988, the company ``adopted'' the Montello Elementary School in Lewiston, then-President George H.W. Bush awarded them with a ``Point of Light'' in celebration of their service and volunteerism. Since then, Geiger Brothers has continued to organize similar partnerships across Maine, and the company's employees have donated their time to worthwhile causes all across the Lewiston-Auburn area. In addition, employees live by ``The Geiger Way,'' a set of values focused on respect for all involved in the business, from employees to clients and everyone in between. The generous and benevolent spirit of Geiger Brothers is assuredly a shining example to all small businesses. Congratulations to Gene Geiger, CEO and president; to Peter Geiger, executive vice president; and to all of Geiger Brothers' accomplished employees on their most recent honor, and all of the awards they have received. It is no wonder that Geiger Brothers has been recognized so consistently throughout the years with their dedication and willingness to serve. I wish them continued success and many more editions of the ``Farmers' Almanac.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' a bill to reauthorize and improve the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. I am deeply committed to supporting our nation's small businesses by increasing their access to capital. Small businesses employ more than half (57 percent) of the total private-sector workforce and are responsible for the creation of more than two-thirds of all new jobs. Clearly, increasing investments in small businesses is crucial to our on-going economic success. This bill, a product of genuine bipartisan negotiation, will reform and enhance the SBIC program, which is so vital to fostering innovation, growth, and job creation in small businesses throughout our country. SBICs are privately owned and managed venture capital investment companies that are licensed and regulated by the SBA. SBICs use their own capital, combined with funds borrowed from other private investors and supported by an SBA guarantee, to make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses. The SBA shares in the profits of SBICs. The structure of the program is unique and has been a model for similar public-private partnerships around the world. The program has been successful in mobilizing private venture capital investment and leveraging private investment with additional funds supported by SBA guarantees. According to the SBA's annual reports to Congress, the SBIC program has provided billions in financing to small businesses since its inception. For example, companies like Staples, FedEx, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, Costco, Apple Computers, and Intel have all received SBIC investments at one time in their history. Each year, financing brought about by the SBIC program allows small businesses to create or retain tens of thousands of jobs. For example, during Fiscal Year 2006, the SBIC program invested $2.987 billion in 2,121 small businesses. Of these, 40 percent were located in government-designated Low and Moderate Income (LMI) areas of the county. Those LMI-district companies received $669 million of the total dollars invested by SBICs in 2006. Since its beginning in 1958, the SBIC program has provided approximately $48 billion of long-term debt and equity capital to more than 100,000 small businesses. In fact, in my home State of Maine, SBICs invested nearly $21 million during FY 2006. A key proposal in this bill is a technical change made to simplify the maximum leverage limits contained in the current statute. Under current law, the maximum leverage cap or the maximum amount of government-guaranteed capital an SBIC can control for Fiscal Year 2007, is $127.2 million for any one SBIC or for multiple SBICs controlled by the same management team. The cap increases automatically on an annual basis by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The problem with current law is that because the leverage cap applies to a whole family of SBICs, it is often impossible for a successful SBIC to operate a second or third fund due to a lack of available leverage. Additional leverage would remedy this issue. Accordingly, the bill increases the leverage cap for anyone fund to $150 million, and the cap for multiple funds held under one management team to $225 million. Furthermore, this bill will increase leverage available for investment in minority- and women-owned businesses, which are having trouble accessing SBIC dollars. In Fiscal Year 2004, minority-owned firms received 5.2 percent of financing dollars. Women-owned businesses obtained just 2.2 percent of financing dollars. To try to increase financing available to such small businesses, the bill increases leverage limits to $175 million for a single fund and $250 million for a group of funds held under an SBIC license if the SBIC certifies that at least 50 percent of its investments are made in companies that are owned by either women or minorities, or are located in a low-income geographic area. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Failing to advance this bill would diminish our chances for innovation, and stifle the entrepreneurial opportunities this program has and will continue to produce.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. The energy debate now underway in this body is a positive initial step for our country, but it is only a first step. Frankly, America must become more innovative and invest in infrastructure that provides a lifetime of savings, both for its citizens and our global neighbors. This year the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am the Ranking Member, has paid particular attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects. Clearly, rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating affect on the health of small business in this country. As we all know, small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their businesses. We need to significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small businesses. To that end, our measure will ensure that the SBA completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 90 days of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be required to complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including setting up a Energy Clearinghouse that builds on the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program. Our bill would also create the position of Assistant Administrator for Small Business Energy Policy within the SBA. The duties of this position include: 1. the oversight and administration the Small Business Energy Clearinghouse Program; and 2. the promotion of energy efficiency efforts and the reduction of energy costs for small businesses. It would also create a Small Business Energy Efficiency Pilot Grant Program. This pilot, competitive grant program would be administered through the national network of Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, which would provide ``energy audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency practices, as well as providing access to information and resources on energy efficiency practices. These practices would include ``on-bill financing'' options. Our bill would also encourage innovation in energy efficiency. Federal agencies shall give priority to Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, program solicitations by small businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development. The SBA will issue guidelines to assist Federal agencies and departments in determining whether priority has been given. Finally, our bill would make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses who wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their existing businesses. I firmly believe that the SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and procedures for approval. Furthermore, lenders and borrowers can negotiate the interest rate, which can result in more favorable terms for a small business owner. The Express Program is the most widely used of SBA's loan products, representing 69 percent of all loans made. In fact, the SBA Express lender network is made up of almost 2,000 financial institutions nationwide. Many small businesses are already leading the charge in combating global warming. For instance, in my home state of Maine, Oakhurst Dairy, an 86-year-old business, recently announced that it has converted its fleet of over 100 trucks and trailers to a bio-diesel fuel blend. Oakhurst's President Stanley Bennett sent me a letter stating: ``We firmly believe that doing the right thing environmentally is almost always the right thing to do for your business.'' It is my hope that our bill will spur more small firms to make the same investment in the environment and their businesses. As we engage in this debate, we must remain mindful that potential solutions must fully consider the economic realities facing small businesses. According to the SBA Office of Advocacy, compliance with environmental regulations costs 364 percent more in small businesses than in larger businesses. So, in developing solutions Senator Kerry and I have worked to ensure that small businesses possess a range of cost-effective alternatives and have avoided a one-sized-fits-all approach. In conclusion, this bipartisan measure will enable small businesses to play a leading role in combating global climate change. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the environment, but will also significantly lower the energy costs for cash-strapped small businesses.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' a bill to reauthorize and improve the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program. I am deeply committed to supporting our nation's small businesses by increasing their access to capital. Small businesses employ more than half (57 percent) of the total private-sector workforce and are responsible for the creation of more than two-thirds of all new jobs. Clearly, increasing investments in small businesses is crucial to our on-going economic success. This bill, a product of genuine bipartisan negotiation, will reform and enhance the SBIC program, which is so vital to fostering innovation, growth, and job creation in small businesses throughout our country. SBICs are privately owned and managed venture capital investment companies that are licensed and regulated by the SBA. SBICs use their own capital, combined with funds borrowed from other private investors and supported by an SBA guarantee, to make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses. The SBA shares in the profits of SBICs. The structure of the program is unique and has been a model for similar public-private partnerships around the world. The program has been successful in mobilizing private venture capital investment and leveraging private investment with additional funds supported by SBA guarantees. According to the SBA's annual reports to Congress, the SBIC program has provided billions in financing to small businesses since its inception. For example, companies like Staples, FedEx, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, Costco, Apple Computers, and Intel have all received SBIC investments at one time in their history. Each year, financing brought about by the SBIC program allows small businesses to create or retain tens of thousands of jobs. For example, during Fiscal Year 2006, the SBIC program invested $2.987 billion in 2,121 small businesses. Of these, 40 percent were located in government-designated Low and Moderate Income (LMI) areas of the county. Those LMI-district companies received $669 million of the total dollars invested by SBICs in 2006. Since its beginning in 1958, the SBIC program has provided approximately $48 billion of long-term debt and equity capital to more than 100,000 small businesses. In fact, in my home State of Maine, SBICs invested nearly $21 million during FY 2006. A key proposal in this bill is a technical change made to simplify the maximum leverage limits contained in the current statute. Under current law, the maximum leverage cap or the maximum amount of government-guaranteed capital an SBIC can control for Fiscal Year 2007, is $127.2 million for any one SBIC or for multiple SBICs controlled by the same management team. The cap increases automatically on an annual basis by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The problem with current law is that because the leverage cap applies to a whole family of SBICs, it is often impossible for a successful SBIC to operate a second or third fund due to a lack of available leverage. Additional leverage would remedy this issue. Accordingly, the bill increases the leverage cap for anyone fund to $150 million, and the cap for multiple funds held under one management team to $225 million. Furthermore, this bill will increase leverage available for investment in minority- and women-owned businesses, which are having trouble accessing SBIC dollars. In Fiscal Year 2004, minority-owned firms received 5.2 percent of financing dollars. Women-owned businesses obtained just 2.2 percent of financing dollars. To try to increase financing available to such small businesses, the bill increases leverage limits to $175 million for a single fund and $250 million for a group of funds held under an SBIC license if the SBIC certifies that at least 50 percent of its investments are made in companies that are owned by either women or minorities, or are located in a low-income geographic area. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Failing to advance this bill would diminish our chances for innovation, and stifle the entrepreneurial opportunities this program has and will continue to produce.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, Program. The NMVC program specializes in providing investment dollars to small businesses in underserved, low-wealth urban and rural communities. Selected by the SBA through a competitive process, NMVC companies are privately owned and managed for-profit entities. They use their own private capital plus debentures obtained at favorable rates with SBA guarantees for investing. In addition, they provide technical assistance to the low-income enterprises in which they invest or intend to invest, by using private resources matched by the SBA in the form of operational assistance grants. While the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which established the program, contemplated 15 NMVC companies, unfortunately, only six NMVC companies have received final approval. Despite the shortfall in the final numbers of approved companies, the NMVC program has achieved some remarkable success since Congress created it in 2000. According to the Community Development Venture Capital Alliance, as of March 31, 2006, the six NMVC companies had invested more than $13.4 million of capital into 29 small businesses. Not only have the NMVC Companies brought investment dollars to underinvested areas, but they have also created or maintained 1,626 jobs in low-income communities. Although the statistics I have just cited pertain to the entire Nation, I want to share an example of how the NMVC program has been a tremendous benefit to my home State of Maine. In 2003, Mike Cote purchased Look's Canning Company in Whiting, ME, which had become one of the last of what had been dozens of canneries along Maine's coast. After changing the canning company's name to Look's Gourmet Food Company, Mike worked with Wiscasset, Maine, based Coastal Enterprises, Inc., a New Markets Venture Capital Company, to help grow the business. Look's Gourmet Food Company is now thriving by selling all-natural, high-quality, shelf-stable seafood products under the ``Bar Harbor T'' and ``Atlantic T'' brands all over the country. As Look's took off, it was able to create 18 new jobs with benefits in Maine's Washington County. That's no small feat for a company doing business in a county that had a 9.1 percent unemployment rate in February, the highest in Maine and more than double the national average. The bill introduced today will go a long way to assisting many low-income communities across America. Other than reauthorizing the NMVC Program, this bill will make other changes to ensure the program is given the full opportunity to achieve its full potential. For example, the bill will conform the definition of ``low-income geographic area'' used in the NMVC program to the definition of a ``low-income community'' as defined by the New Markets Tax Credit, NMTC, program. This amendment is beneficial because many investors participate in both the NMVC and NMTC programs, and a uniform definition between the two programs would improve coordination between the two programs. This change would allow NMVC companies to invest in businesses that benefit a low-income population, as well as businesses located in low-income census tracts. This flexibility to serve low income ``targeted populations'' would be particularly important for NMVC companies operating in states like Maine which have large rural areas with dispersed populations. Additionally, the bill ensures that all existing NMVC companies can take advantage of the amended targeting for investments made with the capital they have already raised. The entrepreneurial spirit of our 26 million small businesses dates back to our Nation's founding. Small businesses are the cornerstone of economic growth and job creation, and it is critical that we support the NMVC program that enables aspiring entrepreneurs to obtain the crucial financing dollars they need to start and grow their businesses. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long fought to ensure the success and vitality of our country's small business sector. An investment in small business is an investment in the long-term economic prosperity of America, and I encourage my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today with Senator Kerry to introduce the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. The energy debate now underway in this body is a positive initial step for our country, but it is only a first step. Frankly, America must become more innovative and invest in infrastructure that provides a lifetime of savings, both for its citizens and our global neighbors. This year the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am the Ranking Member, has paid particular attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects. Clearly, rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating affect on the health of small business in this country. As we all know, small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their businesses. We need to significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small businesses. To that end, our measure will ensure that the SBA completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 90 days of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be required to complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including setting up a Energy Clearinghouse that builds on the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program. Our bill would also create the position of Assistant Administrator for Small Business Energy Policy within the SBA. The duties of this position include: 1. the oversight and administration the Small Business Energy Clearinghouse Program; and 2. the promotion of energy efficiency efforts and the reduction of energy costs for small businesses. It would also create a Small Business Energy Efficiency Pilot Grant Program. This pilot, competitive grant program would be administered through the national network of Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, which would provide ``energy audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency practices, as well as providing access to information and resources on energy efficiency practices. These practices would include ``on-bill financing'' options. Our bill would also encourage innovation in energy efficiency. Federal agencies shall give priority to Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, program solicitations by small businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development. The SBA will issue guidelines to assist Federal agencies and departments in determining whether priority has been given. Finally, our bill would make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses who wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their existing businesses. I firmly believe that the SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and procedures for approval. Furthermore, lenders and borrowers can negotiate the interest rate, which can result in more favorable terms for a small business owner. The Express Program is the most widely used of SBA's loan products, representing 69 percent of all loans made. In fact, the SBA Express lender network is made up of almost 2,000 financial institutions nationwide. Many small businesses are already leading the charge in combating global warming. For instance, in my home state of Maine, Oakhurst Dairy, an 86-year-old business, recently announced that it has converted its fleet of over 100 trucks and trailers to a bio-diesel fuel blend. Oakhurst's President Stanley Bennett sent me a letter stating: ``We firmly believe that doing the right thing environmentally is almost always the right thing to do for your business.'' It is my hope that our bill will spur more small firms to make the same investment in the environment and their businesses. As we engage in this debate, we must remain mindful that potential solutions must fully consider the economic realities facing small businesses. According to the SBA Office of Advocacy, compliance with environmental regulations costs 364 percent more in small businesses than in larger businesses. So, in developing solutions Senator Kerry and I have worked to ensure that small businesses possess a range of cost-effective alternatives and have avoided a one-sized-fits-all approach. In conclusion, this bipartisan measure will enable small businesses to play a leading role in combating global climate change. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the environment, but will also significantly lower the energy costs for cash-strapped small businesses.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Chairman Kerry in introducing the Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, Program. The NMVC program specializes in providing investment dollars to small businesses in underserved, low-wealth urban and rural communities. Selected by the SBA through a competitive process, NMVC companies are privately owned and managed for-profit entities. They use their own private capital plus debentures obtained at favorable rates with SBA guarantees for investing. In addition, they provide technical assistance to the low-income enterprises in which they invest or intend to invest, by using private resources matched by the SBA in the form of operational assistance grants. While the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which established the program, contemplated 15 NMVC companies, unfortunately, only six NMVC companies have received final approval. Despite the shortfall in the final numbers of approved companies, the NMVC program has achieved some remarkable success since Congress created it in 2000. According to the Community Development Venture Capital Alliance, as of March 31, 2006, the six NMVC companies had invested more than $13.4 million of capital into 29 small businesses. Not only have the NMVC Companies brought investment dollars to underinvested areas, but they have also created or maintained 1,626 jobs in low-income communities. Although the statistics I have just cited pertain to the entire Nation, I want to share an example of how the NMVC program has been a tremendous benefit to my home State of Maine. In 2003, Mike Cote purchased Look's Canning Company in Whiting, ME, which had become one of the last of what had been dozens of canneries along Maine's coast. After changing the canning company's name to Look's Gourmet Food Company, Mike worked with Wiscasset, Maine, based Coastal Enterprises, Inc., a New Markets Venture Capital Company, to help grow the business. Look's Gourmet Food Company is now thriving by selling all-natural, high-quality, shelf-stable seafood products under the ``Bar Harbor T'' and ``Atlantic T'' brands all over the country. As Look's took off, it was able to create 18 new jobs with benefits in Maine's Washington County. That's no small feat for a company doing business in a county that had a 9.1 percent unemployment rate in February, the highest in Maine and more than double the national average. The bill introduced today will go a long way to assisting many low-income communities across America. Other than reauthorizing the NMVC Program, this bill will make other changes to ensure the program is given the full opportunity to achieve its full potential. For example, the bill will conform the definition of ``low-income geographic area'' used in the NMVC program to the definition of a ``low-income community'' as defined by the New Markets Tax Credit, NMTC, program. This amendment is beneficial because many investors participate in both the NMVC and NMTC programs, and a uniform definition between the two programs would improve coordination between the two programs. This change would allow NMVC companies to invest in businesses that benefit a low-income population, as well as businesses located in low-income census tracts. This flexibility to serve low income ``targeted populations'' would be particularly important for NMVC companies operating in states like Maine which have large rural areas with dispersed populations. Additionally, the bill ensures that all existing NMVC companies can take advantage of the amended targeting for investments made with the capital they have already raised. The entrepreneurial spirit of our 26 million small businesses dates back to our Nation's founding. Small businesses are the cornerstone of economic growth and job creation, and it is critical that we support the NMVC program that enables aspiring entrepreneurs to obtain the crucial financing dollars they need to start and grow their businesses. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long fought to ensure the success and vitality of our country's small business sector. An investment in small business is an investment in the long-term economic prosperity of America, and I encourage my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I know there are other amendments pending, but I wish to speak to an amendment that is to be offered by our colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, on creating a national greenhouse gas registry. I am pleased to join her in this effort because I do think it is so critical if we are to aggressively and comprehensively address the question of climate change and instituting some major initiatives with respect to global warming. I am pleased to join Senator Klobuchar and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, in offering this amendment at the appropriate time today. I know Senator Klobuchar has spoken to the question, and I want to make sure I have the opportunity to express my views on creating this greenhouse gas registry which I think is absolutely essential in fulfilling the existing void by requiring vital information to help us more effectively and efficiently reduce our Nation's carbon dioxide emissions. I know this is Senator Klobuchar's first major initiative in the Senate as one of our newest colleagues. I had the pleasure of working with her on this initiative. No question it is going to be a major contribution to the environmental debate and to our national energy policy because a greenhouse gas registry is an absolutely integral beginning for collecting emissions data that will lead to an economy- wide number for our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone rightly speaks of the increased greenhouse gas emissions that scientists, through peer-reviewed research, have verified are creating the temperatures to rise, severe droughts, weather events to intensify, and sea levels to rise around the globe. We now have sufficient scientific certainty to know we must act to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, the largest greenhouse gas pollutant both domestically and globally. While there is this sense of urgency, as there should be, I think we well recognize all the consequences of our failure to act both internationally as well as domestically. The United States EPA has no facility-by-facility inventory to even accurately report emissions in the United States. We simply have no solid number representing how much carbon is even emitted. While the powerplant sector is responsible for reporting under the Clean Air Act, the Government has no accurate system to account for the largest U.S. emitters, as we are currently under an incomplete and voluntary system for reporting yearly emissions for non-powerplant facilities. Now is the time to follow the lead of our neighbor to the North, Canada, which already has a mandatory registry system in place. In fact, the Senate has addressed establishing a greenhouse gas registry in the past. Specifically, the 107th Congress 2002 Energy bill called for a national database for greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary reporting language, and also a hard trigger that I proposed that made the program mandatory after 5 years if industry had not stepped to the plate and voluntarily reported and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, regrettably, no bill emerged from conference that year. I have no doubt our Nation would be in a much better position today if such a provision had been put in place 5 years ago. I also have no doubt the United States would have engendered more respect internationally if we had instituted a mandatory program for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Indeed, let us recall--and I certainly do because I was here, I was in the House of Representatives at the time--the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by former President Bush and ratified by the Senate and which entered into force on March 21, 1994. The United States agreed to gather and share information on its annual greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the EPA makes an estimate on what the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are every year. Frankly, I would call it more of a guesstimate because how precisely and exactly can emissions be reported under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when accurate data is not even available to the EPA from well over half of the emitters in the United States? There are around 12,000 U.S. industries, from petroleum refiners, cement and steel manufacturers, chemical plants, and others, that do not have to report any greenhouse emissions whatsoever. They are only being asked to participate in a voluntary reporting scheme called the Department of Energy's 1605(b) voluntary registry program which has been marginally successful at best when one considers that according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2005, only about 200 companies voluntarily reported their emissions--only 200, Mr. President. It is truly alarming there is no comprehensive national accounting of greenhouse gas emissions for major emitters in the United States, nor is there any certification that the reported greenhouse gas emissions are even accurate. The Department of Energy's Office of Policy and International Affairs is only asked to review the 1605(b) guidelines every 3 years. All we are requiring today is a mandatory greenhouse gas emissions registry to secure accurate numbers. For those who don't favor advancing climate change legislation, they should at least be concerned that the United States meets its obligations by accurately reporting its total annual greenhouse gas emissions, not having a guesstimate or uncertain data, but data that give us the most precise and accurate information. For those of you, like myself, who support a market-based carbon cap- and-trade system, as called for in the Kerry-Snowe legislation and the Lieberman-McCain climate bill to decrease domestic greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon cap-and-trade system, the registry we are requesting has to be the very first step. It is an integral component to any type of carbon cap and trade we might initiate in the future. We are being proactive by not waiting until we have established a cap-and-trade system that will require reporting emissions for major industries. This will jump-start the actions in the United States for decreasing emissions. A trading system carries with it a value of every ton of carbon. A ton of carbon not emitted is worth a credit that can be sold to a company that emitted a ton too much. So we will need a level of detail and verification to make the market truly work in distributing credit for tons not emitted in the shortest timeframe possible. The European Union has been a living laboratory for its bold step in setting up the world's first carbon cap-and-trade system. They modeled its greenhouse gas emissions scheme after a sulfur dioxide cap-and- trade program that was put into place by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 to combat acid rain. A European official, in appraising the mistakes made with their still new system, said: You need a registry, and you need a reporting vehicle. That information gathering is vital, ``a very important first step,'' he indicated. I recall it took EPA 5 years to get the acid rain program up and running because powerplant operators had to install devices to gather pollution rates. The European Union is going through similar growing pains because they had no registry of verified data to make its cap- and-trade system work accurately. Too many credits were given. So a national greenhouse gas registry is a crucial precursor to both mandatory and market-based carbon cap-and-trade regulations of industrial greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming which we know has been verified indisputably by the numerous reports and scientific data and studies, such as from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is quite simple: If there is no system for counting carbon emissions, there is no accurate way these emissions can be reduced, and certainly there is no accurate way they can be capped or a trading scheme developed. Once again, the States are undertaking initiatives. They are certainly assuming a leadership role for climate change actions. There are 31 States, with California and the New England States in the lead, that represent more than 70 percent of the population in the United States that are now participating in the Climate Registry, all measuring in the same manner and jointly tracking greenhouse gas emissions from major industries. This partnership with the climate registry is yet another example of the States going farther than the Federal Government and taking the initiative and taking the steps essential to combating global warming. More significantly, the emissions statistics of the new registry are subject to third-party verification as opposed to the Federal voluntary program that doesn't require any verification of any kind and, therefore, undermines the certainty, the credibility, and the confidence in that information because it has not been certified in any way. I hope my colleagues will support this initiative offered by Senator Klobuchar, Senator Bingaman, and myself to establish this essential accounting tool that will give businesses and policymakers the ability to track emissions as a building block for climate change emissions reduction initiatives that are currently before Congress. Very recently, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, held a meeting with a number of CEOs of various major corporations around the United States who have supported a carbon cap-and-trade system. They have joined in a major partnership, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, with environmental organizations and other stakeholders in support of initiating domestic climate change initiatives and legislation. This is very significant because these companies and these corporate executives have indicated their support for a carbon cap-and-trade system for the very first time because they understand that many of the States, as I indicated, the 31 States--with California having taken the lead and now the New England States and my State of Maine is certainly one of them that has been in the forefront of environmental leadership--have adopted the various regulations that will be part of a carbon cap-and-trade system. The fact is, these States have taken the lead, and they have been very aggressive and bold in their steps to reduce emissions in their respective States and regions. Now companies understand the true value that will emerge in having one national standard so they have predictability, if they have a national standard that creates a carbon cap-and-trade system, so they can plan for the future. After all, companies have to make long-term decisions and have to have lead time in making decisions 30 to 40 to 50 years and beyond. So they have to understand exactly what regulations they will be governed by. They want the certainty, and they do not want to deal with States' different rules and regulations. They would like to be governed and regulated by one standard, a Federal standard, with respect to regulations through a national carbon cap-and-trade system. In our discussions during the course of that luncheon, they indicated a greenhouse gas emissions registry would be absolutely integral to this process; that, in fact, it is the very first step that is so essential in developing the predictability, the certainty, and the confidence in the data that has been yielded so we know for sure which companies are emitting how much so the carbon cap-and-trade system that is ultimately put in place is put in place with confidence. We can then have a verifiable trading system that can buy and sell credits that will be important to this process if we are going to establish a cap and trade program to ultimately reduce carbon dioxide emissions which is, of course, what it is all about if we are ever going to begin the process of curtailing climate change and to avert any increases in the Earth's temperature by the year 2050, which most scientists have indicated is the tipping point. We have to prevent an increase in the Earth's temperature by more than 2 degrees centigrade by the middle of this century. Ultimately, it is going to require a major reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at least at a minimum at 65 percent, which is the legislation I have joined Senator Kerry on that will achieve that level in order to avert that climatic tipping point we obviously want to accomplish over the next few decades. This carbon cap-and-trade system is going to be a vital component to bringing everybody on board in industry, and having an economy-wide approach is very important if we are going to be effective in curtailing these emissions that indisputably and undeniably are having an unambiguous impact on our environment. The science has obviously been verified by so many of the reports that have been issued in the last couple of years and these reports are alarming. Now is the time to begin action. So I want to commend my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, for taking this initiative for a national greenhouse gas registry. By all accounts it is absolutely an integral part of our effort as we begin to take the measures needed to be proactive in combating global warming. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.