Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that has been introduced by Senator Dorgan with whom I have joined as a cosponsor regarding drug importation. First of all, I commend Senator Dorgan for his longstanding leadership and advocacy on this issue which has been for the better part of a decade. Regretfully, we are still at a point where we have been unable to pass legislation that would create a drug safety regime for drug importation. That is the purpose of our amendment, Members of the Senate, as we today consider legislation to address an essential new function in how the FDA will finance the cost of reviewing new drugs; that is, the critical process of bringing new medications to market to Americans. At the same time, this bill has directly raised a number of issues in how we assure that drugs are as safe as they should be, how we can bring new low-cost generic biologics to market. Key to this debate on this legislation that is pending before the Senate is the adage, which we have heard time and time again, that is: A drug which is not affordable is neither safe nor effective. The simple fact is, even with the new Part D prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare Program that has been in place for more than 2 years now, we still have at least 60 million Americans overall that today pay the full price of medications, have no help whatsoever because many have no health insurance or their insurance does not provide coverage for prescription drugs. At the same time, the price that Americans are paying is the highest price in the world. For those of us who are fortunate to have prescription drug coverage, the estimated cost of medications is part of the major exorbitant increase in the cost of health care. Many of my colleagues have recognized that our system lacks competition that would assure our constituents more affordable access to lifesaving medications. That is why I am very pleased to join with the Senator from North Dakota, and we have the support of a bipartisan group of colleagues in the Senate, along with Senators Grassley and Kennedy and Senators McCain and Stabenow who are unified with us in supporting this bipartisan approach. Today, our voices echo those of 8 out of 10 Americans who are calling for safe importation. After nearly 3 years of awaiting Senate consideration of our legislation in 11 related hearings on this subject in the Senate, we simply must move forward. The reason is abundantly clear. We know the cost of health care is rapidly rising in America. Prescription drug prices have contributed to that exorbitant increase. Compared to 1990, nearly twice as much of our health care dollar goes to medications. As the GAO has readily told us, the cost of prescription drugs commonly used by seniors has consistently increased at two to three times the rate of inflation, as indicated by this chart, when you are comparing brand drugs, generics, and the CPI. That is why we can no longer afford to postpone any action. We have acted before. We acted on legislation back in 2000. Then we also took action with respect to the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 which created a Part D prescription drug program. We have found the requirements for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety and savings of drug importation have blocked any action; it has become a roadblock to safe importation. While FDA was unable to point to a single individual harmed by Canadian drugs--and in Europe, where they have had a track record of more than 30 years of parallel trading--it has proven that this trade can be conducted safely. Time and time again, they have demonstrated that their process of parallel trading has worked without any harm to their consumers. Without a doubt, Americans would not be turning to imports if there was not substantial savings. Indeed, the CBO has told us that countries from which we would import under this bill would pay 35 to 55 percent less for a brand prescription drug. Let me repeat that--35 to 55 percent less than we pay today. In other words, American consumers are paying 35 to 55 percent more than foreign consumers when it comes to medications. That is remarkable. We have seen so many objections to this legislation for the better part of a decade. That is why we have taken it upon ourselves to develop a regime that has been incorporated in this amendment and in our legislation that would address every facet, every issue that is associated with safety in order to allow drug importation to occur. As I said earlier, the European Union has already engaged in parallel trading for three decades without incident. As seen here on this chart, where we have incorporated 31 different key safety provisions in our legislation, and compare that to the Medicare Modernization Act that passed in 2003 that created the Part D prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program, only 6 provisions that related to safety were incorporated in that landmark initiative. We include 31 different initiatives to address every single safety- related issue that has emerged in this debate. Whether it has been on the floor of the Senate, whether it has been in the course of hearings or elsewhere, we have addressed every safety-related issue to create a regime that should create the assurance that this can be done safely and without harm to Americans so they can benefit from lower priced medications. Americans deserve to have the lower priced medications. The FDA can conduct this program. They can conduct this regime. They should work proactively to assure these drugs are safe. We give them the means and the wherewithal and the resources in order to accomplish this. We comprehensively address the various concerns that have been raised months and years about drug importation so we can get something done. People say: Well, let's just certify safety. Well, as I have said earlier, it is a roadblock. It is an impediment to get anything done. It essentially becomes the poison pill. We have tried certification. We have given the Secretary of Health and Human Services under two administrations--this administration and the previous administration-- the ability to do that, to certify it. They are unwilling to do so because they have said they do not have the resources, they do not have the means. Well, we are giving them the means and the resources. But to pass another amendment that simply calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify drug importation is a roadblock. It is a road to nowhere with respect to this initiative. That is why Senator Dorgan and I took a different route. We address all the safety questions. We do not certify to ensure safety, we take action with these provisions. What we do is employ the measures to actually make drug importation safe. Opponents claim importation will cause harm. But they fail to note that the greatest threat to the safety of Americans is the inability to take a drug as it is prescribed. That exacts a toll on thousands, if not millions, of Americans each and every year, not to mention lives lost. Some say Americans would receive drugs from illegitimate sources, but under our legislation, Americans will receive imported drugs from 32 countries with high standards. In most cases Americans will purchase an imported prescription drug from their local pharmacies just as they do today. The pharmacies will receive these drugs from the U.S. wholesalers which import them. These wholesalers will have been registered. They will be inspected. They will be monitored by the FDA. This higher level of safety is also a first step in establishing a higher standard for handling of prescription drugs right here in the United States where we have had the preponderance of problems. Our legislation allows individuals to directly order medications using an FDA-registered and approved Canadian pharmacy. Again, just as with wholesalers handling prescription drugs, the FDA will examine, register, and inspect these facilities on a frequent basis. The FDA will assure the highest standards for such functions as making sure the medical history is recorded of the individual, verifying prescriptions, and tracking the shipments. Some say consumers will get medications they should not be getting. Regardless of whether one purchases imported drugs from the local pharmacist or uses a Canadian pharmacy, we assure that a legitimate prescription and a qualified pharmacist will be vital ingredients to ensuring safety. In fact, we have many standards incorporated in this legislation in which it would occur. We adopted language that had been introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, with respect to Web sites and domestic Internet pharmacies so that we assure that properly licensed pharmacies and pharmacists are behind Web sites that are offering these medications. Some say importation will allow unapproved drugs to enter the United States. Again, on that point, our legislation is abundantly clear. Every drug received will always be FDA-approved. If any difference exists in a foreign drug, even the most minute, our legislation assures FDA will evaluate the product and determine its acceptability. If the drug is not bioequivalent to a U.S. drug, the Secretary may reject approval of that medication. Some say we will import counterfeits. The truth is, today the FDA does not know even the level of domestic counterfeiting where, as I said earlier, the preponderance of the problem exists. It is simply not employing the very anticounterfeiting technologies which our legislation demands in order to ensure that we protect against the threat of counterfeits. The fact is, we employ technologies today like the ones we use now for twenty-dollar bills. We can use the same for prescription drugs. Moreover, this bill supports development of future anticounterfeiting and track-and-trace technologies, very effective methods which we hope will be used to protect all drugs. For those who say consumers would not know who has handled the imported prescription drug, again, our bill requires a chain of custody, a pedigree to be maintained and inspected to help ensure the integrity of imported medications. A pedigree for prescription drugs was mandated, believe it or not, by law in 1988 and still has not been implemented by the FDA. Under our legislation, at last we will require pedigrees to be implemented for all medications. Some opponents will even attempt to alarm Americans about the countries from which we import drugs, citing Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and members of the European Union. But consider that another member is Ireland where Lipitor is made. Again, I call your attention to this chart which indicates the European Union and other countries from which we import drugs designated in blue. They either meet our standards or have even higher ones, ones as you can see in this chart, all of the blue countries from which we would import. They have our standards or they exceed our standards. In contrast, this chart denotes the countries in red from which, again, our manufacturers import medications. That is interesting. The FDA inspects pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in these countries denoted in red. These are countries from which manufacturers will import products. It includes China, India, Bulgaria, Jordan, and other countries. In fact, they have lower standards. So what I have indicated, based on what this map shows, is that we have the blue countries from which we would allow importation of drugs that would be FDA-approved, facilities inspected, documented. We would have pedigrees and technologies to track the shipments. These are countries that meet or exceed our standards. Today we already have FDA pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in these countries in red that, in fact, have lower standards. So we already, amazingly enough, allow medications to come in from countries that have lower standards. Why do we? Because they are inspected by FDA. So the same process can't work for countries that meet or exceed our standards already, that already have a track record in parallel trading in and amongst their own countries, and we can't do it today for those countries when FDA already does it for other countries that have lower standards? Because that is where many of our medications are manufactured. That is where our manufacturers import and FDA inspects those facilities before those medications enter the United States. So this is already done. It is done with countries that have lower standards, and we find that acceptable. Yet we say we are not finding it acceptable from countries that already have a track record of parallel trading amongst their own country without injury to any of their consumers over the last 30 years that meet or exceed our standards. It simply doesn't make sense. We are setting a model for improving safety because we are saying we are going to create 36 different measures for establishing safety for the American consumer to assure all those concerned that we have the measures in place and the resources with which to do it. So to those who say importation is unsafe, we show them how it shall be safe under our legislation. It sets a model and a standard. Some say consumers will not see significant savings. But drugs imported under this program will be labeled as imports so consumers will have the opportunity to do some comparative shopping. They will be able to take those prices and do a side-by-side comparison between the imports and those medications they buy in the United States. Consumers have become well aware of foreign pricing and the competition that exists between imported and wholesalers. We know they will achieve consumer savings; there is no question. That is why so many Americans, including many of my constituents from the State of Maine who have been able to access medications from Canada, have had to take bus trip after bus trip. They have been compelled to do that in order to achieve savings because of our unwillingness to address this issue in the Senate and the overall Congress. This legislation should have been accomplished a long time ago. In terms of savings, it should be interesting to note the independent analysis of the Congressional Budget Office which has confirmed that the savings, indeed, should be substantial--not surprising. It would be very substantial, indeed. They estimate a 10-year direct savings alone of $50 billion to the American consumer--$50 billion. That is probably on the conservative side. The Federal Government stands to save $6.1 billion in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs alone. This is only the savings that CBO projected from purchases of imports. With increased competition in our markets, we could indeed save more, having competition, having the pharmaceutical industry have some competition in their pricing. Understand, individuals can't import medications. Pharmacists can't import medications. Only manufacturers can. So we are saying: Let's set a standard. Let's allow imports that benefit the individual consumer with safety-related provisions put in place. In fact, in a recent Commerce Committee subcommittee hearing, we had the opportunity to hear from a number of experts. We heard from a pharmaceutical economist who estimated that importation could result in a 12- to 20-percent reduction in domestic drug costs. That is an annual savings, not over 10 years, of up to $40 billion per year, as competition is created for consumer savings. So as a direct result of the competition that would develop as a result of importation, consumers alone could save up to $40 billion a year. So at a time when health care spending is reaching 16 percent of GDP and is climbing, this competition is an imperative. It is central. It is central to the consumer who is facing double-digit increases in prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are not getting cheaper in America. They are getting more expensive. As I said, the American consumer is spending 35 to 55 percent more than the foreign consumer. Health care spending is 16 percent of the GDP. Much of the increase in health care spending is attributed to the rising cost in prescription drugs. So that is why this becomes all the more important to the American consumer and, indeed, to the Federal Government that will save $50 billion over 10 years and 6 billion alone in Medicare and Medicaid spending. That is important to our own interests and to our budgetary concerns about the growth in these respective programs. Some have argued that we haven't provided the resources necessary to run an importation program. But we have established a means of financing, a small fee based on the value of imported drugs which will now be set at a cap of 2.5 percent. We have always agreed that the FDA should have adequate resources. In fact, we heard from previous Secretaries of Health and Human Services, we don't have the resources to certify safety. So now we are providing a certification for that by including this cap of 2.5 percent for a fee on the total import of medications. This is what CBO has indicated to us would be necessary in order to accomplish and implement these safety-related measures. We think it is important the FDA have the resources that are essential for regulation, for monitoring inspections of both domestic wholesalers, who would import the prescription drugs, as well as the Canadian pharmacies from which American consumers could order. Some say our bill is intended to adopt Canadian prices. Again, quite the contrary. We open importation to 32 countries which meet our safety standards. We are not simply adopting the price of another country. Rather, we are purchasing in a world market. That is a critical point. We are allowing American consumers to benefit from worldwide prices because of the competition that would be allowed. Obviously, something is happening in other countries where we want to import these medications because they are paying 35 to 55 percent less than American consumers. Why should that be the case? These are countries, by the way, that meet or exceed our standards when it comes to drug safety. Yet American consumers are paying 35 to 55 percent more for the same medications. Some say we compel manufacturers to sell the product. But our bill is very clear on that specific point. We never compel any manufacturer to sell any particular product. But when a manufacturer chooses to sell product, the bipartisan bill prohibits discriminatory acts against pharmacists and wholesalers who sell these medications. Those actions have reduced supplies of essential drugs for some Americans, at peril to their health. We are saying they cannot take action that discriminates against a pharmacy because they have sold those drugs to an American consumer. They are not penalized because their supplies are cut off by the manufacturer as a means of punishment and discrimination. Now, some say importation will threaten research and development. But the fact is, manufacturers will invest just as other industries do, in order to develop innovative products and remain competitive. The taxpayer is a partner in that investment. The American taxpayer is a partner. The taxpayer makes investments in research and development. In fact, we fund nearly $30 billion a year to do basic and applied research at the National Institutes of Health alone--$30 billion. So as you can see on this chart, as to R&D spending from all the companies, we--the United States consumer and taxpayer--fund and underwrite much of their research and development. As I said earlier, other industrialized countries pay 35 to 55 percent less for their drugs. But because of the higher prices Americans pay for their medications, the American consumer ends up paying $99 billion more for their prescription drugs each year than otherwise would be the case. Let me repeat that. Because we pay 35 to 55 percent more than foreign consumers, American consumers end up paying $99 billion more for their medications. With all that additional profit, the industry spends about $9 billion more on research and development than they do in Europe. That is 10 cents return on the dollar for all that added profit margin. So while the American consumers spend $99 billion more for their prescription drugs than foreign consumers, in Europe, for example, American pharmaceuticals spend only $9 billion more--from that $99 billion--on research and development than they do in Europe. We spend only $9 billion more here than they do in Europe on research and development. That means American pharmaceuticals are netting $90 billion more, that they are only investing $9 billion more in research and development. So it is not undercutting their ability for research and development, not to also mention, by the way, the American taxpayer invests more than $30 billion at the National Institutes of Health alone for basic research as well. In fact, if you look at the R&D spending of the largest pharmaceutical firms--as indicated again by this chart--it is not markedly different from many other firms. If you look at other firms, such as Intel, Microsoft, Lucent, and others with high research and development costs and relatively low production costs, their research and development spending averages about 14.3 percent of gross revenues--not much different--yet their products are highly competitive, very competitive. You have seen the software, cell phones, computers, laptops, whatever. You have seen the very competitive pricing today, yet they make an investment of 14.3 percent for research and development as a percentage of their gross revenues. Yet, paying the world's highest prices for drugs does not ensure additional research, but it certainly does decrease access to drugs. So while they do not invest in considerably more research and development--since we pay $99 billion more in prices for prescription medications, and they only spend $9 billion more on research and development, and the taxpayer spends $30 billion at NIH alone, as I indicated; but even, comparatively speaking, it is 14.4 percent of their gross revenues that are invested in research and development--if you compare that to, as I said, Intel, Microsoft, Lucent, and other companies, which is 14.3 percent, you find more competitive products in the technology arena. Their prices are coming down. The American consumer is not benefiting from the investments that are being made by the pharmaceuticals, yet it is a highly profitable industry. So we are not seeing the same benefits that would yield lower prices for the American consumer. Now, in conclusion, let me say, I hope this Senate will adopt this amendment that creates the kind of safety regime that would ensure drug importation will become a reality. Simply certifying safety on the part of the Secretary of Health and Human Services has been tried and yet has never accomplished that goal. It has been an impediment to drug importation. It has occurred twice in the last 10 years, and for whatever reasons the Secretaries in the previous administration and this administration have concluded they will not certify the safety regime because there has been no safety regime. It could be done, but it has not been done through the agencies. FDA could do it. It has not accomplished it. It has not implemented it. It has not had the impetus to pursue it. That is why we have taken it a step further. This legislation has been examined, reexamined, based on the concerns that have been expressed by those who have been opposed to it in the past saying they have concern about safety. We understand that. So we have gone a step further and incorporated every safety-related measure possible that is achievable, measurable, and provide the FDA with the resources to accomplish it. The Senate has voiced its view to provide market access on this issue on many occasions, even by virtue of passing the certification standard. Obviously, I think there has been an indication on the part of the Senate to support some type of initiative that allows for drug importation. But we want to mitigate the concerns that have been expressed repeatedly about the issues of safety by incorporating all of those measures in this amendment that is pending before the Senate. In fact, 68 Members of this body voted to adopt the amendment that was offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. But we need more than to simply allow importation. We must provide an effective framework that will address the concerns that will ultimately ensure the safety of our consumers. Sixty-eight Members of this body supported blocking the Customs agency from banning drug importation, so it is obvious Members of this Senate truly want to pass a measure that will allow for drug importation. That is why I think this legislation logically affords us the ability to provide the safety and, at the same time, allow consumers in America to benefit from competition, from lower prices, based on the track record and the experience of other countries that have been adopting this approach for many decades. Competition is what is missing in this process. It will work for the consumer. To date, the process has not worked for the consumer where they have benefited from lower prices for medications because there has been no competition. Competition has been virtually absent. I note the comment of the former Pfizer CEO, Hank McKinnell, who wrote: Competition is good medicine for economies. . . . Name an industry in which competition is allowed to flourish-- computers, telecommunications, small package shipping, retailing, entertainment--and I'll show you lower prices, higher quality, more innovation, and better customer service. There's nary an exception. Okay, there's one. So far the healthcare industry seems immune to the discipline of competition. Those are the words of the former Pfizer CEO, Hank McKinnell. It is indeed time to make competition work to benefit consumers and taxpayers. Americans deserve and will seek out affordable life- sustaining medications. We must assure that access is safe. That is what we accomplish in this amendment that is pending before the Senate. Again, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for his leadership on this question and for all those who are supporting this initiative. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Senator Kerry in introducing, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill is especially timely considering the Nation recently celebrated National Small Business Week, and this body just passed the America COMPETES Act, a bill that invests in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy. The impact small businesses have on our country's economy and the technological innovations they create simply cannot be overstated. Small hi-tech firms represent the most innovative sector in America. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, these businesses hold over 40 percent of the Nation's patents, obtain 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large businesses, and secure patents which are twice as technologically significant as larger firms. With American jobs and our security at stake, it is essential that we support innovation programs to meet national challenges in defense, healthcare, energy, and information technology. A critical partner for small businesses is the Small Business Administration, SBA, whose fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The SBA's methods for carrying out this mandate vary widely, but the agency's primary tool is found in its small business lending programs. The SBA's 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs are tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employing 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, it is essential that Congress affirms long-term stability in the lending programs the SBA provides to the small business community. As it has in the past, the SBA continues to meet the demands of small businesses, both in my home state of Maine and across the county. In fiscal Year 2006, the SBA backed a net 100,197 loans totaling over $19.1 billion under the 7(a) and 504 programs. In fact, both the number of loans and the dollar amount represent record amounts for the agency--dramatically highlighting the significance of the SBA and the critical role it plays in our nation's economy. The foundation for the bill Senator Kerry and I are introducing today started during the 109th Congress under an extensive reauthorization process which I led. This process ultimately culminated in the unanimous Small Business Committee passage of a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. I firmly believe that the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will help the SBA continue its legacy of achievement. The SBA's loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. Our bipartisan measure will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. As former Chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to solidify and expand the reach of the SBA's programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses. Small businesses yearn to grow, flourish, and thrive, and the SBA has the experience and the resources to be their bridge to success. It is essential that we upgrade the SBA's core lending programs for the 21st century entrepreneur. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. The Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will build on the previous success of the Agency, and help to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Senator Kerry in introducing, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill is especially timely considering the Nation recently celebrated National Small Business Week, and this body just passed the America COMPETES Act, a bill that invests in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy. The impact small businesses have on our country's economy and the technological innovations they create simply cannot be overstated. Small hi-tech firms represent the most innovative sector in America. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, these businesses hold over 40 percent of the Nation's patents, obtain 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large businesses, and secure patents which are twice as technologically significant as larger firms. With American jobs and our security at stake, it is essential that we support innovation programs to meet national challenges in defense, healthcare, energy, and information technology. A critical partner for small businesses is the Small Business Administration, SBA, whose fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The SBA's methods for carrying out this mandate vary widely, but the agency's primary tool is found in its small business lending programs. The SBA's 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs are tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employing 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, it is essential that Congress affirms long-term stability in the lending programs the SBA provides to the small business community. As it has in the past, the SBA continues to meet the demands of small businesses, both in my home state of Maine and across the county. In fiscal Year 2006, the SBA backed a net 100,197 loans totaling over $19.1 billion under the 7(a) and 504 programs. In fact, both the number of loans and the dollar amount represent record amounts for the agency--dramatically highlighting the significance of the SBA and the critical role it plays in our nation's economy. The foundation for the bill Senator Kerry and I are introducing today started during the 109th Congress under an extensive reauthorization process which I led. This process ultimately culminated in the unanimous Small Business Committee passage of a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. I firmly believe that the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will help the SBA continue its legacy of achievement. The SBA's loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. Our bipartisan measure will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. As former Chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to solidify and expand the reach of the SBA's programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses. Small businesses yearn to grow, flourish, and thrive, and the SBA has the experience and the resources to be their bridge to success. It is essential that we upgrade the SBA's core lending programs for the 21st century entrepreneur. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. The Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will build on the previous success of the Agency, and help to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need to end Canada's trade-distorting personal customs duty exemption scheme, which severely disadvantages border-area businesses in Maine and across the country. The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, of 1994 were intended to create a level playing field for companies in both countries in terms of cross- border commerce. However, the spirit--if not the letter of these agreements--have been abrogated by Canada's schedule of personal exemptions from customs duties and taxes for returning Canadian residents. Under this scheme, Canada allows its residents no personal exemption from customs duties on goods purchased during trips abroad lasting less than 24 hours. For trips between 24 and 48 hours, Canadians are exempt from their government's duties and taxes on only the first C$50 of purchases. In contrast, the United States allows its residents to bring $200 of merchandise into the country duty free upon returning from a trip abroad lasting less than 48 hours. As the U.S. Trade Representative said in its 2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, this disparity between the Canadian and U.S. personal duty exemption schedules discourages shopping visits to the United States by Canadian border residents. Understandably, it is therefore a major concern for Maine and other U.S. border-area businesses, which rely on such cross-border commerce for their very livelihoods. Canada's personal duty exemption scheme has thus produced an unwelcome area of friction in a largely vibrant and friendly cross- border relationship. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Canada's international trade obligations to the United States under Chapter Twelve of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under that agreement, Canada is obligated to accord to United States service providers, including retail and distribution service providers, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own service providers and the service providers of any other country. When one considers, as Canada's government no doubt has, that foreign travel by Canadian residents lasting less than 48 hours is almost exclusively to the United States, Canada's personal customs duty exemption scheme appears to be a deliberate attempt to favor its own retail establishments at the expense of U.S. merchants just across the border. This scheme thus defeats the very purpose of NAFTA--to foster cross-border commerce unrestrained by protectionist policies. Despite this inconsistency with NAFTA and frequent requests by U.S. lawmakers and trade officials, Canada has for years refused to change its personal duty exemption scheme. That is why Senator Cantwell and I today introduce a bill that would direct the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate an investigation of Canada's personal duty exemption scheme under the section 301 process of the Trade Act of 1974--the statue setting forth the procedures for identifying and taking action against foreign trade practices which are unjustifiable or burden and restrict U.S. commerce. The section 301 process exists--like NAFTA itself--to ensure that mutually respectful trade relationships can efficiently handle and amicably survive substantive disagreements over trade rules. We therefore introduce this bill not to embarrass or chastise Canada but to formally initiate the process of bringing this particular disagreement to a principled resolution. I urge our colleagues from border and nonborder States alike to join us seeking that fair outcome.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need to end Canada's trade-distorting personal customs duty exemption scheme, which severely disadvantages border-area businesses in Maine and across the country. The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, of 1994 were intended to create a level playing field for companies in both countries in terms of cross- border commerce. However, the spirit--if not the letter of these agreements--have been abrogated by Canada's schedule of personal exemptions from customs duties and taxes for returning Canadian residents. Under this scheme, Canada allows its residents no personal exemption from customs duties on goods purchased during trips abroad lasting less than 24 hours. For trips between 24 and 48 hours, Canadians are exempt from their government's duties and taxes on only the first C$50 of purchases. In contrast, the United States allows its residents to bring $200 of merchandise into the country duty free upon returning from a trip abroad lasting less than 48 hours. As the U.S. Trade Representative said in its 2007 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, this disparity between the Canadian and U.S. personal duty exemption schedules discourages shopping visits to the United States by Canadian border residents. Understandably, it is therefore a major concern for Maine and other U.S. border-area businesses, which rely on such cross-border commerce for their very livelihoods. Canada's personal duty exemption scheme has thus produced an unwelcome area of friction in a largely vibrant and friendly cross- border relationship. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Canada's international trade obligations to the United States under Chapter Twelve of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under that agreement, Canada is obligated to accord to United States service providers, including retail and distribution service providers, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own service providers and the service providers of any other country. When one considers, as Canada's government no doubt has, that foreign travel by Canadian residents lasting less than 48 hours is almost exclusively to the United States, Canada's personal customs duty exemption scheme appears to be a deliberate attempt to favor its own retail establishments at the expense of U.S. merchants just across the border. This scheme thus defeats the very purpose of NAFTA--to foster cross-border commerce unrestrained by protectionist policies. Despite this inconsistency with NAFTA and frequent requests by U.S. lawmakers and trade officials, Canada has for years refused to change its personal duty exemption scheme. That is why Senator Cantwell and I today introduce a bill that would direct the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate an investigation of Canada's personal duty exemption scheme under the section 301 process of the Trade Act of 1974--the statue setting forth the procedures for identifying and taking action against foreign trade practices which are unjustifiable or burden and restrict U.S. commerce. The section 301 process exists--like NAFTA itself--to ensure that mutually respectful trade relationships can efficiently handle and amicably survive substantive disagreements over trade rules. We therefore introduce this bill not to embarrass or chastise Canada but to formally initiate the process of bringing this particular disagreement to a principled resolution. I urge our colleagues from border and nonborder States alike to join us seeking that fair outcome.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate ``National Small Business Week, which President Bush designated for April 22-28, 2007. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I simply cannot understate the vital role of small business in our Nation's economy. There was a time when ``what was good for General Motors was good for America.'' But the fact is what's truly good for this country--what built it, what sustains it, what drives it, and what represents its core--are the small businesses that each and every year create nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs. In my home State of Maine, small businesses comprise 97.5 percent of all businesses. First, I would like to discuss the unfair and onerous tax and regulatory burdens that continue to impede the ability of our Nation's small businesses to compete in an ever-increasing global marketplace. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend an astounding 8 billion hours each year complying with government rules and regulations. Eighty percent of this time is spent on completing tax forms. Furthermore, businesses employing fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs, nearly 67 percent more than the comparable cost to larger firms. Despite the fact that small businesses are the primary job-creators for our economy, the tax system is not working because small companies spend their money and time satisfying their tax obligations. For that reason, I have introduced a package of proposals that will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but also simpler rules under the tax code. By simplifying the Tax Code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, allowing them to be able to devote more time and resources to their business. I have introduced legislation, S. 269, in response to the repeated requests from small businesses in Maine and from across the Nation to allow them to expense more of their investments, like the purchase of essential new equipment. My bill modifies the Internal Revenue Code by doubling the amount a small business can expense from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent as President Bush proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating 75 percent of net new jobs and contributing 51 percent of private-sector output, their size is the only ``small'' aspect about them. By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 7, or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000 in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the economy. This is a win- win for small business and the economy as a whole and I am please to have Senators Lott, Isakson, Chambliss, and Collins join me as cosponsors of this legislation. Another proposal that I have introduced, with Senators Lincoln and Lott, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007, S. 270, will permit start-up small business owners to use a taxable year other than the calendar year if they generally earn fewer than $5 million during the tax year. Specifically, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007 will permit more taxpayers to use the taxable year most suitable to their business cycle. Until 1986, businesses could elect the taxable year-end that made the most economic sense for the business. In 1986, Congress passed legislation requiring partnerships and S corporations, many of which are small businesses, to adopt a December 31 year-end for tax purposes. The Tax Code does provide alternatives to the calendar year for small businesses, but the compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with these alternatives prove to be too high for most small businesses to utilize. Meanwhile, C corporations, as large corporations often are, receive much more flexibility in their choice of taxable year. A so-called C corporation can adopt either a calendar year or any fiscal year for tax purposes, as along as it keeps its books on that basis. This creates the unfair result of allowing larger businesses with greater resources greater flexibility in choosing a taxable year than smaller firms with fewer resources. This simply does not make sense to me. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the taxable year that best suits their business. To provide relief and equity to our nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I have introduced a bill, S. 271, with Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry, that reduces from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. Under current law, only retailers that lease their property are allowed this accelerated depreciation, which means it excludes retailers that also own the property in which they operate. My bill simply seeks to provide equal treatment to all retailers. Specifically, this bill will simply conform the tax codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every five to seven years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement. Finally, I joined Senator Bond in introducing S. 296 that will simplify the tax code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn fewer than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome record keeping requirements that they currently must undertake in reporting their income under a different accounting method. Earlier this year, I was very pleased when the Senate passed small business tax relief that included portions of my proposals on small business expensing, cash method accounting, and accelerated depreciation for improvements to retail-owned property. Sadly, I must report that on the very same week of ``National Small Business Week,'' cash method accounting and my proposal to bring depreciation equity for retailer-owned property were stripped from the small business tax relief package in conference negotiations between the House and Senate. This is extremely unfortunate especially when one considers that the Senate-passed package, which was fully offset, was both modest and fiscally responsible. In the coming months, I will continue to fight for these proposals and am hopeful that Congress will enact them into law. This package of proposals are a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. Notably, providing tax relief by passing these simplification measures will also help us reduce the tax gap by increasing compliance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these proposals. In addition to reforming the tax code, we in Congress should level the regulatory playing field for small businesses. Over the past 20 years, the number and complexity of Federal regulations have multiplied at an alarming rate. For example, in 2004, the Federal Register contained 75,675 pages, an all-time record, and 4,101 rules. These rules and regulations impose a much more significant impact on small businesses than larger businesses. To illustrate this conclusion, a recent report prepared for the SBA's Office of Advocacy that said that in 2004, the per-employee cost of Federal regulations for firms with fewer than 20 employees was $7,647. In contrast, the per-employee cost of federal regulations for firms with 500 or more workers was $5,282, which results in a 44 percent increase in burden for smaller businesses compared to their larger counterparts. Clearly, we must find ways to ease the regulatory burden for our nation's small businesses so that they may continue to create jobs and drive economic growth. All too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the financial resources to comply with complex Federal rules and regulations. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. If an agency can not describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This is why I have offered bipartisan legislation, the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act, S. 246, with Senators Kerry, Enzi, and Landrieu, which would clarify small business requirements that exist under Federal law. Our measure is drawn directly from recommendations put forth by the Government Accountability Office and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, which unanimously passed the Senate in 1996. Specifically, our bill clarifies when a small business compliance guide is required, how a guide shall be designated, how and when a guide shall be published, and that the agency make the guide available on the Internet. It would not create any new rules or requirements. This commonsense, good government reform would provide a major regulatory reform for small businesses at virtually no cost to the Federal Government. It is clear that in order to ensure our small businesses are able to grow, thrive, and, most importantly, create jobs, we need to simplify the tax code and reduce the regulatory burden. Over the coming months, I will continue to fight to accomplish these commonsense objectives.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I concur with Senator Kerry and appreciate his support for this proposal that simply would bring equity between retail operations. Frankly, this provision should have been included when Congress first extended accelerated depreciation for leasehold improvements. This is not a new provision but, rather, it simply perfects current law. Though disappointed by the absence of the provision in the conference agreement, I appreciate the chairman's commitment to this issue and hope he will continue to work with Senator Kerry and me, as well as the other cosponsors of S. 271, to see that the provision receives full and fair consideration as the process to finally enact small business relief continues to move forward I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I join Senator Kerry in my disappointment that this provision that would benefit retail operations like Greenacres Kennel Shop in Bangor, ME, was not included in the conference agreement of the supplemental appropriations bill. The provision originated from legislation, S. 271, that I introduced with Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry to provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees. This bill will simply conform the Tax Code to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators in our Nation's economy, the current tax system is placing an entirely unreasonable burden on them when trying to satisfy their tax obligations. What is most troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms. As a result, I was most pleased when the chairman and ranking member included this modest proposal as part of the small business tax relief package. Unfortunately, the provision did not survive conference negotiations with the House.

Mr. SNOWE

Mr. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I offer a few remarks regarding National Small Business Week, which President Bush designated for April 22-28, 2007. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my top priorities is to champion our Nation's small businesses and to promote their needs and concerns. Our top job creators deserve nothing less. This week, I have already discussed how Congress must solve the small business health insurance crisis and bolster the state of our Nation's small manufacturers. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes on the critical role small businesses play in the American economy. In the back of our minds, we in Congress all know how vital small businesses are to economic growth. But when we come to the floor to speak about small businesses issues, we are generally trying to fix a specific problem. We generally gloss over the overall impact small businesses have on driving our Nation's economy. The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, an independent voice for small businesses within the Federal Government, has published a wide variety of statistics regarding small firms. This data, which shows that small businesses are responsible for 50 percent of nonfarm economic output, or gross domestic product, clearly reflects how vital small businesses are to job creation and the Nation's economy. One little known fact is that small businesses represent just about every private-sector employer in the United States. According to the Office of Advocacy, which defines a small business as an independent employer with fewer than 500 employees, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. In 2005, approximately 25.8 million small businesses, 671,800 of which are estimated to have opened in that year alone, were operational and providing consumers and businesses with goods and services. Of these firms, 5.8 million had employees, and 18.6 million were sole proprietorships. In contrast, there were only approximately 17,000 larger business in operation across the country in 2005. Not only do small businesses account for just about every employer in the United States, but these firms are also job providers. Small businesses employ fully half of all private-sector workers. They also pay more than 45 percent of U.S. private payroll. Of the 113.4 million nonfarm private-sector workers in 2003, 57.4 million were employed by small firms with fewer than 500 employees. Notably, small businesses with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 41 million of that number. In addition to employing American workers, small businesses are also at the forefront of creating new jobs. Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. What is particularly interesting is that in 2003, the most recent year for which complete data is available, small businesses created 1,990,326 net new jobs. In contrast, large firms with 500 or more employees shed 994,667 jobs. Thus, if it were not for small businesses, the economy would have lost jobs in 2003 instead of creating just about 1 million new employment opportunities for America's workforce. It is vital to point out that the jobs small businesses are creating reflect the needs of a high-tech, innovative, and global marketplace. Small businesses have led the technological revolution and currently employ 41 percent of high-tech workers, including scientists, engineers, and information technology professionals. Moreover, small businesses are constantly creating new products, producing 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large firms. In addition, these patents are twice as likely as large-firm patents to be among the one percent most-often cited. Finally, America's small business are competing on a global scale, comprising 97 percent of all identified exporters and producing 28.6 of total exports in 2004. The fact is small businesses are the driving force behind our Nation's economic growth creating nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs and employing nearly 51 percent of the private sector workforce. These are the reasons it is so essential that we in Congress continue to support small businesses' ability to grow and expand so that our economy can accelerate forward and create more jobs. I hope we keep this in mind when we come to the floor to fight for fewer regulations, a lower tax burden, and more affordable and accessible health insurance for small businesses and their employees.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I commemorate National Small Business Week, which President Bush designated for April 22-28, 2007. As ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have made it one of my top priorities to champion our Nation's small businesses and manufacturers and promote their needs and concerns. Our top job creators deserve nothing less. The fact is, small businesses are the driving force behind our Nation's economic growth, creating nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs and employing nearly 51 percent of the private sector workforce. It is essential that we in Congress continue to support small businesses ability to grow and expand so our economy can accelerate forward and create more jobs. I can tell you, there is no higher priority for me than bolstering the state of our Nation's small manufacturers. In Maine, more than 20,700 manufacturing jobs disappeared between August 2000 and August 2006. We here in Congress cannot accept any more losses as a foregone conclusion. This vital sector continues to face tremendous challenges--taking on a significant level of domestic costs that foreign competitors do not, including labor costs, fuel costs, and the regulatory and tax burden. Sadly, as a result, many manufacturers are forced to close their doors or outsource abroad. The reality is, the manufacturing sector, more than any other sector, drives our Nation's economy--with manufacturers responsible for more than 70 percent of private sector research and manufacturing goods making up over 60 percent of U.S. exports. There is no coincidence that this is a value added industry. I believe that we can and must fight for our Nation's manufacturers especially when you consider the manufacturing industries pay wages that are about one-third higher than average wages. And that is all the more true for small business when they have resources available that have proven their value, including the SBA which has helped to create or retain over 5.3 million jobs since 1999. And just last year, the manufacturing extension partnership's, MEP's, services helped to create and retain over 35,000 jobs and increase revenue by $6.25 billion. We must work hand-in-glove with Small Business Administration, SBA, and MEP to bolster our manufacturing base to ensure not only that resources are available to those who wanted to either maintain, grow, or start small businesses. That is why I introduced an amendment today to the America COMPETES Act that clarifies the MEP non-Federal cost share language to enable the MEP centers to draw down all of their available funding and further enhance their capability and capacity to work with manufacturers. This amendment clarifies the intent of Congress when it first enacted the statute authorizing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, now known as the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program, to provide Federal assistance to manufacturers in the United States. A key concept in the program is the requirement that each center obtain 50 percent of its capital and annual operating and maintenance costs from sources other than the Federal Government. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, officials have, in the past, properly considered cost share requirements to have been met when centers partnered or entered into other agreements with other organizations meeting the needs of American manufacturers. This amendment clarifies and reemphasizes that such agreements and partnerships, and the money spent by those organizations assisting American manufacturers, clearly are to be considered proper cost share as long as the partnering organization is meeting the programmatic objectives for assistance to be provided to American manufacturers as set forth for the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program. By teaming with such organizations, as encouraged by the original statute, the centers can and do leverage their Federal resources and avoid duplicating services necessary for the successful operation of American manufacturers. With the right resources, many more small manufacturers will be eligible to use this program to help grow their business. We cannot ignore the effect that countries like China are having on our Nation's manufacturers. In order to compete fairly in this increasingly competitive global market we must ensure that currencies are not strategically manipulated. That is why I will continue to work with the President and those in Congress to ensure that our Nation gets tough with China on those important issues. I continue to pressure the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade Representative to also work toward that goal China to move toward a market-based exchange rate. The bottom line is, our country's future will be determined by today's small businesses. The faster we strengthen and sustain our Nation's small manufacturers, the more quickly America's economy will grow.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, today I commemorate National Small Business Week, which President Bush designated for April 22-28, 2007. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I simply cannot understate the vital role of small business in our Nation's economy. Small businesses comprise 99 percent of all businesses in the United States, employ more than half of the total private sector workforce, and are responsible for the creation of more than two-thirds of all new jobs each year. It is essential that we in Congress continue to support small businesses' efforts to grow and do what they do best--create new jobs. If there is one concern we have all heard time and again, it is the exorbitant cost to small businesses of providing health insurance to their employees. In fact, small business owners in all 50 States have cited rising health insurance costs as their number one concern. Health insurance premiums have increased at double-digit percentage levels in 4 of the past 6 years--far outpacing inflation and wage gains. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, last year the average health policy for an individual was $4,242; the average family plan cost $11,480. As we are all well aware, these sharply rising costs are leading fewer and fewer small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. According to Kaiser, in 2002, 58 percent of our Nation's smallest businesses, those with less than 10 employees, offered health insurance. In 2004, only 52 percent were able to offer their employees health insurance. Today, just 48 percent of our smallest businesses are now able to offer health insurance as a workplace benefit. As you can see, that is a 10 percentage point reduction over the past 5 years. Clearly, we are heading in the wrong direction. Further compounding the problem is the fact that small group insurance markets exhibit no real competition. No competition means higher costs. And higher costs mean no health insurance. I recently requested a Government Accountability Office report, which revealed a staggering consolidation in the State small group insurance markets. Today, the five largest carriers now have more than a 75 percent market share in 26 States--and control 98 percent of the small group market in Maine. This trend is simply unacceptable and represents nothing short of a crisis--and one that can and must be fixed, now. In the Senate, I have been a longstanding champion of small business health plans and I have introduced legislation in the past two Congresses that would allow small businesses to ``pool'' together, across State lines, and offer uniform health insurance plans to their employees, at significantly lower costs. I firmly believe that small business health plans are a critical solution to the small business health insurance crisis. It is a matter of simple fairness. Just like larger businesses and unions, I believe small businesses should have the option to purchase health plans across State lines with uniform benefits packages. It would allow them to shop for affordable, quality plans with much lower administrative costs while at the same time drastically shrinking the ranks of the nearly 47 million Americans living without health insurance. Moving forward this year, we need to leave no stone unturned in our search for solutions to this crisis. For example, we should examine ways to use the Tax Code as a mechanism for increasing access to health care, including through ``pooling mechanisms, and injecting competition into the State small group insurance markets. This is why I am currently working with a number of my colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the political aisle, to forge a bipartisan bill that will pass the Senate and be signed into law. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus has announced that we will soon consider health care legislation in the Finance Committee--and I look forward to a robust productive debate there. I also thank Senator Enzi for all of his tremendous efforts in getting legislation passed through the HELP Committee last year, and for having that legislation considered on the Senate floor for the first time ever. Frankly, now is a time for action, not words. It is incumbent upon this Congress to think ``outside of the box'' to solve this crisis. We need to consider all options on the table, including a number of recently passed State reforms. We are at a critical juncture on this issue. The United States has the greatest health care system in the world, and yet nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured. Our goal ought to be providing health care access for all, and that means greatly expanding coverage so that we can significantly reduce our Nation's uninsured. We must figure out how to solve the persistent criticisms that have mired small business health insurance legislation in Congress. We must address how to allow health insurers to provide lower cost products to small businesses across State lines while maintaining the most widely accepted and necessary benefits and services. We must tackle questions of how to ``rate,'' or price, these products--and also how this can be done in a uniform manner, without jeopardizing consumer protections. And we can and we must do all this without injuring existing health insurance markets in the States. Plain and simple, Congress must bring up small business health insurance legislation this year, in a bipartisan, comprehensive way that can secure significant bipartisan support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I am a proud cosponsor of the Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act. Increasing access to veterans' health care facilities is essential to recognizing the realities that exist on the ground today, not only for veterans living in rural areas of my home State of Maine, but for the millions of veterans living in remote areas across our broad land. I applaud Senator Salazar for introducing this legislation at a time when so many of our veterans receive their health care through the VA and nearly half of today's active duty military servicemembers and tomorrow's veteran population list rural communities as their homes of record. Once again, I commend Senator Salazar for his continuing resoluteness and advocacy for our veterans. Our legislation will work to expand upon the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, which passed the Senate with my support at the end of the 109th Congress. Under that legislation, the Veterans Affairs Office of Rural Health was created in order to enhance access to VA medical facilities for veterans living in geographically remote areas. First off, our newly proposed legislation tasks the Office of Rural Health with developing demonstration projects that would broaden the access to health care in rural areas by way of partnership between the Department of Veterans Affairs, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Department of Health and Human Services at access hospitals and community health centers. Second, this bill calls on the Office of Rural Health to establish between one and five Centers for Excellence to be based at VA medical centers to research ways to improve health care for rural veterans. While increased outpatient care services in Maine and other underserved areas is a good step forward, it is only half of the equation. Veterans must also be able to get to the facilities, and while programs such as the Disabled American Veterans Transportation Network are to be commended, they simply cannot take care of all the transportation needs of all the patients who require VA health care. Therefore, our legislation would task the Director of the Office of Rural Health to create a program that would provide grants of up to $50,000 to veterans' service organizations and State veterans' service officers to assist veterans with innovative travel options to VA medical centers. Additionally, this legislation directly addresses the inequitable travel reimbursements currently provided to veterans for their travel expenses to VA medical facilities, an issue which I have brought up to the VA Secretary Jim Nicholson in the past. Under current law, veterans with a disability of 30 percent or more are entitled to 11 cents per mile, a rate that has not changed since 1977. In order to put an end to this unjust practice, our legislation would provide critical assistance to veterans traveling long distances to VA health care facilities by reimbursing them at the Federal rate of 48.5 cents per mile. Establishing new facilities and transportation networks in Maine, as enumerated within the provisions of our legislation, would give rural veterans better access to the veteran health care system and deliver on the promise America has made to our men and women in uniform. But as rural veterans will tell you, there is a long way to go, and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the VA secures the necessary resources for all rural regions across Maine and throughout the Nation. Furthermore, 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 veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day, by invoking the indelible words of President John F. Kennedy, who stated: As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. Undoubtedly, these words still speak truth today, at a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now up to Congress to do everything in its power to answer our veterans' call, to ensure that they receive the benefits that they rightly earned and rightly deserve. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Our veterans deserve nothing less. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq. Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. I know that none of us arrive at this question lightly. In my 28-year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters--some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for--and love of--our great Nation. And there was-- and should not be today--no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops. It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi government which fails to respond in kind. This amendment requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan--commonly referred to as the ``surge''--is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan. Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment--a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed--the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are: Iraqi assumption of control of its military . . . Enactment of a Militia Law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq . . . Completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . . Completion of provincial election law and preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . . Enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and Enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq. The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the Commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period. That is why, under this amendment, after 120 days, should the Commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counter- terrorism operations--i.e., those functions set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report. As General Petraeus stated in March, ``I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.'' The message must be loud and clear--the Iraqi government must understand in no uncertain terms that our presence is neither open- ended nor unconditional, and I support setting conditions for a phased withdrawal. My concern with the supplemental appropriations bill stems from the fact that it mandates a specific date for troop withdrawal by requiring it to occur within 120 days of passage. This arbitrary timeline would telegraph a precise and immediate departure date to our enemies that I believe would jeopardize the security of our men and women remaining on the ground. Moreover, this mandated, 120-day timetable does not place the necessary pressure and conditions on the Iraqi government to implement national reconciliation and solidify their own security. Rather, we should require that the Iraqi government complete work within 120 days on the specific, concrete benchmarks they have already agreed to that would lead to national reconciliation. If the Iraqis cannot meet these benchmarks within this 120-day period, our commanders should begin planning for the phased redeployment of the troops we deployed for the Baghdad Security Plan. My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not-- and still do not--believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation--we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi. After our four-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been made on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments. I believe we were all encouraged by the recent Ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and the follow-on ministerial conference called at the Iraqi government's request. These talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province. We are now three months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that-- mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi government has moved on political reforms--their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts. Two weeks ago, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-Ed, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' `` He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.''' In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi government is a paramount precursor to national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.'' To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us. If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi government--and frankly our government as well--that my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions--not merely increased troop levels--presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice strong . . . together . . . and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act.'' This is a targeted, non-controversial measure. It would ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) fully consider the impacts of their final rules mandating how small public companies must comply with the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our Nation's small stock companies are the cornerstone of our entrepreneurial economy, and it is essential that we carefully address the regulatory barriers that impede their growth. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was essential in restoring investor confidence after accounting fraud and massive company deceptions shook the public's trust in U.S. markets. The horrendous debacle of corporate greed from companies like Enron and Worldcom forced not only thousands of employees to lose their jobs, but also wiped out the life savings of many retirees. Now, as we refine Sarbanes-Oxley's regulations, we must carefully preserve investor protections and ensure company transparency and accountability. In my home State of Maine, small publicly-traded companies are indispensable to the strength and renewal of our economy. However, the fact is that many of these small stock companies are struggling mightily with the cost and regulatory burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, regardless of their industry. Whether it's a utility company, a dairy pharmaceutical company that makes large animal vaccines, or a community bank that fears being smothered by the combined weight of Sarbanes-Oxley and banking regulations, it is crucial that Maine's home grown companies focus their energies on developing new products, entering new markets, and creating jobs--not on compliance. This is why I rise today, with Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007.'' Our bill would require the SEC to conduct a small business analysis, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), before the SEC publishes its final rules on small business internal controls compliance. This non- controversial provision simply restates existing law, ensuring that the SEC conducts a final RFA analysis. As the SEC should already be conducting this analysis as part of its final rulemaking process, this bill will impose no additional delay. Our bill would also require the SEC to publish a small business compliance guide, consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). This compliance guide would explain, in plain language, the small business requirements under the rule. The SEC should publish this small businesses compliance guide when it publishes its final rule, so that small business understand the new requirements. As this non-controversial provision also restates existing law, this measure would impose no additional delay on the SEC's rulemaking process. Regulations disproportionately affect small businesses and significantly hinder their competitiveness. In 2004, Senator Enzi and I jointly requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on small public companies' access to capital. The study found that the costs for complying with Sarbanes- Oxley were nine times greater for smaller companies than for large stock companies. We must reduce the burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley so that our small stocks in Maine, Minnesota, and across the country can continue to be some of the world's fastest growing and most innovative companies. Finally, to address this disproportionate regulatory burden on small businesses, our bill would require that the GAO re-analyze the impact of these rules on small public companies two years after final rules are published. The GAO's report would include an assessment of the costs and time commitments the SEC and PCAOB requirements impose on small businesses and whether these costs are expected to decrease or increase in the future. Additionally, the final report would include recommendations, and regulatory alternatives, on how to simplify or improve the process of complying with SEC and PCAOB small company stock requirements. This provision simply ensures that the rules do not impose unintended, undue burdens on small businesses. The ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007'' will help to ensure that small stock companies do not suffer from additional unintended consequences which harm their ability to compete, innovate, and grow--and, most importantly, create jobs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act.'' This is a targeted, non-controversial measure. It would ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) fully consider the impacts of their final rules mandating how small public companies must comply with the internal control requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our Nation's small stock companies are the cornerstone of our entrepreneurial economy, and it is essential that we carefully address the regulatory barriers that impede their growth. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was essential in restoring investor confidence after accounting fraud and massive company deceptions shook the public's trust in U.S. markets. The horrendous debacle of corporate greed from companies like Enron and Worldcom forced not only thousands of employees to lose their jobs, but also wiped out the life savings of many retirees. Now, as we refine Sarbanes-Oxley's regulations, we must carefully preserve investor protections and ensure company transparency and accountability. In my home State of Maine, small publicly-traded companies are indispensable to the strength and renewal of our economy. However, the fact is that many of these small stock companies are struggling mightily with the cost and regulatory burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, regardless of their industry. Whether it's a utility company, a dairy pharmaceutical company that makes large animal vaccines, or a community bank that fears being smothered by the combined weight of Sarbanes-Oxley and banking regulations, it is crucial that Maine's home grown companies focus their energies on developing new products, entering new markets, and creating jobs--not on compliance. This is why I rise today, with Senator Coleman, to introduce the ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007.'' Our bill would require the SEC to conduct a small business analysis, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), before the SEC publishes its final rules on small business internal controls compliance. This non- controversial provision simply restates existing law, ensuring that the SEC conducts a final RFA analysis. As the SEC should already be conducting this analysis as part of its final rulemaking process, this bill will impose no additional delay. Our bill would also require the SEC to publish a small business compliance guide, consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). This compliance guide would explain, in plain language, the small business requirements under the rule. The SEC should publish this small businesses compliance guide when it publishes its final rule, so that small business understand the new requirements. As this non-controversial provision also restates existing law, this measure would impose no additional delay on the SEC's rulemaking process. Regulations disproportionately affect small businesses and significantly hinder their competitiveness. In 2004, Senator Enzi and I jointly requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study the effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on small public companies' access to capital. The study found that the costs for complying with Sarbanes- Oxley were nine times greater for smaller companies than for large stock companies. We must reduce the burden imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley so that our small stocks in Maine, Minnesota, and across the country can continue to be some of the world's fastest growing and most innovative companies. Finally, to address this disproportionate regulatory burden on small businesses, our bill would require that the GAO re-analyze the impact of these rules on small public companies two years after final rules are published. The GAO's report would include an assessment of the costs and time commitments the SEC and PCAOB requirements impose on small businesses and whether these costs are expected to decrease or increase in the future. Additionally, the final report would include recommendations, and regulatory alternatives, on how to simplify or improve the process of complying with SEC and PCAOB small company stock requirements. This provision simply ensures that the rules do not impose unintended, undue burdens on small businesses. The ``Small Business Regulatory Review Act of 2007'' will help to ensure that small stock companies do not suffer from additional unintended consequences which harm their ability to compete, innovate, and grow--and, most importantly, create jobs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the monumental and consequential matter regarding the future course of the United States and our courageous men and women in uniform in Iraq. Today, we are at a profoundly challenging moment in time, and at a critical crossroads with respect to our direction in this war. I know that none of us arrive at this question lightly. In my 28-year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. And indisputably, myriad, deeply-held beliefs and arguments were expressed on those pivotal matters--some in concert, some complementary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted in mutual concern for--and love of--our great Nation. And there was-- and should not be today--no question about our support for our brave and extraordinary troops. It is therefore with the utmost respect for our troops that I today introduce a bill which allows them the ability to complete the mission they have selflessly undertaken, while assuring them that their valor shall not be unconditionally expended upon an Iraqi government which fails to respond in kind. This amendment requires that government to actually achieve previously agreed political and security benchmarks while the Baghdad Security Plan--commonly referred to as the ``surge''--is in effect, or face the redeployment of those U.S. troops dedicated to that plan. Specifically, this legislation would require that, 120 days after enactment--a point in time at which our military commanders have stated that they should know whether the surge will succeed--the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq would report to Congress as to whether the Iraqi government has met each of six political and security-related benchmarks which it has already agreed to meet by that time. These six benchmarks are: Iraqi assumption of control of its military . . . Enactment of a Militia Law to disarm and demobilize militias and to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq . . . Completion of the constitutional review and a referendum held on special amendments to the Iraqi Constitution that ensure equitable participation in the government of Iraq without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . . Completion of provincial election law and preparation for the conduct of provincial elections that ensures equitable constitution of provincial representative bodies without regard to religious sect or ethnicity . . . Enactment and implementation of legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner; and Enactment and implementation of legislation that equitably reforms the de-Ba'athification process in Iraq. The Iraqi Government must know that any opportunity gained from our increased troop levels in Baghdad is a window that we will soon close if it fails to take urgent action and show tangible results in tandem. If, at the end of 120 days, the Commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq reports the Iraqi Government has not met the benchmarks, then the Commander should plan for the phased redeployment of the troops we provided for the Baghdad Security Plan, period. That is why, under this amendment, after 120 days, should the Commander report that the Iraqi Government has failed to meet the benchmarks listed, he will then be required to present a plan for the phased redeployment of those combat troops sent to Iraq in support of the Baghdad Security Plan and to provide plans detailing the transition of the mission of the U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to one of logistical support, training, force protection, and targeted counter- terrorism operations--i.e., those functions set forth in the Iraq Study Group Report. As General Petraeus stated in March, ``I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.'' The message must be loud and clear--the Iraqi government must understand in no uncertain terms that our presence is neither open- ended nor unconditional, and I support setting conditions for a phased withdrawal. My concern with the supplemental appropriations bill stems from the fact that it mandates a specific date for troop withdrawal by requiring it to occur within 120 days of passage. This arbitrary timeline would telegraph a precise and immediate departure date to our enemies that I believe would jeopardize the security of our men and women remaining on the ground. Moreover, this mandated, 120-day timetable does not place the necessary pressure and conditions on the Iraqi government to implement national reconciliation and solidify their own security. Rather, we should require that the Iraqi government complete work within 120 days on the specific, concrete benchmarks they have already agreed to that would lead to national reconciliation. If the Iraqis cannot meet these benchmarks within this 120-day period, our commanders should begin planning for the phased redeployment of the troops we deployed for the Baghdad Security Plan. My colleagues may recall that I opposed the surge because I did not-- and still do not--believe that additional troops are a substitute for political will and capacity. General Petraeus said last month that a political resolution is crucial because that is what will determine in the long run the success of this effort. I could not agree more. The fact is, America and the world require more than Iraq's commitment to accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national reconciliation--we must see actual results. The Iraqi Government must find the will to ensure that it represents and protects the rights of every Iraqi. After our four-year commitment, Iraq's Government should not doubt that we must observe more than incremental steps toward political reconciliation we require demonstrable changes. While limited progress has been made on necessary legislative initiatives such as the Hydrocarbon Law, it is in fact a sheaf of laws and not just a single measure that must pass to ensure that all Iraqis have a share and stake in their government. Chief among these are constitutional amendments which will permit Iraqis of all ethnicities and confessions to be represented at the local level of government. Yet, so far, the review committee has yet to even finish drafts of these critical amendments. I believe we were all encouraged by the recent Ambassadorial meetings in Baghdad and the follow-on ministerial conference called at the Iraqi government's request. These talks are vital to securing Iraq's border, reversing the flow of refugees, and stemming the foreign interference which exacerbates sectarian divisions. But we also look for the Iraqi government's leadership in dismantling the militias and strengthening the National Army so that it is truly a national institution that can provide the security so desperately desired by all Iraqis in every province. We are now three months into the surge, and our troops have made gains in reducing the still horrific levels of violence on Baghdad through their heroic efforts. Yet it is deeply concerning to me that-- mirroring the slowness with which the Iraqi government has moved on political reforms--their sacrifice remains by and largely unmatched by their Iraqi counterparts. Two weeks ago, Leon Panetta, a member of the Iraq Study Group, wrote the following in a New York Times Op-Ed, ``. . . every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq. As one American general told us, `if the Iraqi government does not make political progress on reforms, all the troops in the world will not provide security.' `` He went on to enumerate the progress or, more to the point, the lack of progress toward the agreed upon benchmarks and concluded that `unless the United States finds new ways to bring strong pressure on the Iraqis, things are not likely to pick up any time soon.''' In fact, over the past few months, many have come to the realization that political action by the Iraqi government is a paramount precursor to national reconciliation and stability and, without it, the Baghdad Security Plan is only a temporary, tactical fix for one specific location. And while we are hearing about incremental successes, I agree with Thomas Friedman who said recently in an interview, ``there's only one metric for the surge working, and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq, which only they can do . . . telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or 8 percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all.'' To this day, the public looks to the United States Senate to temper the passions of politics and to bridge divides. And if ever there were a moment when Americans are imploring us to live up to the moniker of ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' that moment is upon us. If I had a son or daughter or other family member serving in Iraq, I would want at least the assurance that someone was speaking up to tell the Iraqi government--and frankly our government as well--that my family's sacrifice must be matched by action and sacrifice on the part of the Iraqi government. I would want to know that the most profound of all issues was fully debated by those who are elected to provide leadership. For those of us who seek success in Iraq, and believe that a strategy predicated on political and diplomatic solutions--not merely increased troop levels--presents the strongest opportunity to reach that goal, let us coalesce around this bill, which will allow us to speak as one voice strong . . . together . . . and united in service to a purpose we believe to be right.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today millions of taxpayers, many owners of small businesses, will file their income tax returns while some States in the Northeast, including my home State of Maine, have rightfully been given an additional 48 hours to file due to the devastating storms resulting in disastrous flooding, wind damage, and power outages. As citizens file their taxes this week, I am very happy to say that a wide majority of Mainers and Americans alike will be fully compliant in reporting the appropriate amount of income, with the Internal Revenue Service estimating 84 percent of taxpayers are compliant. The unfortunate flip side to that statistic is that 16 percent of taxpayers either fail to report income or underreport income and thus fail to pay all the taxes owed. This misreporting of income has resulted in a $345 billion gross tax gap, which is the difference between taxes owed and paid. Unquestionably, we must ensure that taxes owed are taxes paid. While the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projects a deficit of around $200 billion this fiscal year without any abatement through 2011, the fact remains that narrowing the tax gap would help reduce the deficit--plain and simple. Not only does the tax gap prevent us from balancing the budget, equally disturbing is how noncompliance breeds disrespect for the tax system and can lead to the further shirking of obligations. The result could be that, to fill the gap, law-abiding taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes. Consider the following: According to preliminary IRS data, for 2005, taxpayers filed 134.5 million individual income tax returns. If we were to shrink the tax gap, each of those returns would have to be assessed additional tax in the amount of $2,566. I would not want to be in position to ask my constituents for more of their hard- earned money, especially to cover those who are not paying their fair share. Last year, the Treasury Department issued ``A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing the Tax Gap.'' This document astutely points out, the Tax Code's complexity is itself a significant source of noncompliance. The current Tax Code costs the Government revenue since even those who try their best to follow the rules, often end up underpaying tax because the rules are too complicated and difficult to decipher. Therefore, any solution to the tax gap must also require simplifying the Tax Code. A top priority I hear from small businesses across Maine and this country is the need for tax relief. Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for Maine's and our Nation's economy, the current tax system is placing an entirely unreasonable burden on them when trying to satisfy their tax obligations. The current Tax Code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying their reporting and record-keeping obligations. The problem, though, is that small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation. For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend an astounding 8 billion hours each year complying with Government reports. They also spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs, an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Businesses found that 88 percent of small-employer taxpayers used a tax professional and the two reasons small-employer taxpayers most frequently cite for using tax professionals are to assure compliance and the complexity of the law. For that reason, I have introduced a package of proposals that will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but also simpler rules under the Tax Code. By simplifying the Tax Code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, allowing them to be able to devote more time and resources to their business. I have introduced legislation, S. 269, in response to the repeated requests from small businesses in Maine and from across the Nation to allow them to expense more of their investments, like the purchase of essential new equipment. My bill modifies the Internal Revenue Code by doubling the amount a small business can expense from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent, as President Bush proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating 75 percent of net new jobs and contributing 51 percent of private-sector output, their size is the only ``small'' aspect about them. By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 7 or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000 in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the economy. This is a win- win for small business and the economy as a whole and I am pleased to have Senators Lott, Isakson, Chambliss and Collins join me as cosponsors of this legislation. Another proposal that I have introduced with Senators Lincoln and Lott, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007, S. 270, will permit start-up small business owners to use a taxable year other than the calendar year if they generally earn fewer than $5 million during the tax year. Specifically, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007 will permit more taxpayers to use the taxable year most suitable to their business cycle. Until 1986, businesses could elect the taxable year-end that made the most economic sense for the business. In 1986, Congress passed legislation requiring partnerships and S corporations, many of which are small businesses, to adopt a December 31 year-end. The Tax Code does provide alternatives to the calendar year for small businesses, but the compliance costs and administrative burdens associated with these alternatives prove to be too high for most small businesses to utilize. Meanwhile, C corporations, as large corporations often are, receive much more flexibility in their choice of taxable year. A C corporation can adopt either a calendar year or any fiscal year for tax purposes, as long as it keeps its books on that basis. This creates the unfair result of allowing larger businesses with greater resources greater flexibility in choosing a taxable year than smaller firms with fewer resources. This simply does not make sense to me. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the taxable year that best suits their business. To provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I have introduced a bill, S. 271, with Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry that reduces from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. Under current law, only retailers that lease their property are allowed this accelerated depreciation, which means it excludes retailers that also own the property in which they operate. My bill simply seeks to provide equal treatment to all retailers. Specifically, this bill will simply conform the Tax Codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every 5 to 7 years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement. Finally, I joined Senator Bond in introducing S. 296 that will simplify the Tax Code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn fewer than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome recordkeeping requirements that they currently must undertake in reporting their income under a different accounting method. This package of proposals are a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. Notably, providing tax relief by passing these simplification measures will also help us reduce the tax gap by increasing compliance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these proposals.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue of tremendous significance to countless Americans and to generations to come--the matter of stem cell research. I thank the majority leader for his efforts to ensure consideration of stem cell legislation. The bottom line is, there is research we should be conducting today that could help us treat--and in some cases cure--some of our most serious diseases. That is why two-thirds of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research and why I am an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The promise of stem cell research lies in the simple fact that embryonic stem cells have the unique potential to develop into any of the cells which could be needed to treat the multitude of diseases from which Americans suffer. The vast potential of stem cell therapy is key to future therapies because in so many diseases, cells in the body are damaged or destroyed, and their role is often irreplaceable. Stem cells offer an opportunity to actually replace the function which was lost. Consider today that 20 million Americans live with diabetes. Despite treatment with drugs and insulin, many diabetics experience vision loss, injury to extremities, heart disease and other complications. For years, scientists have sought to find a cure. And today stem cells offer that potential to end dependence on insulin--freeing millions from diabetes. In many diseases, there simply is not an effective therapy to replace the function which individuals lost or damaged cells can no longer provide. Today there are limited treatment options for brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease and ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. For such diseases, stem cell therapies offer promise that we could alleviate the suffering that millions now experience. This week the Senate is considering two bills. The first of these promotes stem cell research. It encourages research which is already underway--which is eligible today for both private and public funding. And while that research should be encouraged, it is not facing impediments, save for the fact most of us would like to see greater progress in biomedical research funding--and stop the erosion of the budgets of the National Institutes of Health. Yet since no impediment exists to the work described this first bill describes, this legislation is--despite its positive aspects--a distraction from a crucial question. That is, whether we will continue to impede progress in human embryonic stem cell research. The problem is, that while scientists are tackling stem cell research on multiple fronts, to ensure success they try to predict the path most likely to be successful. In that regard, we know that embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any cell type of the body. That is why scientists have sought to use them in their race to create cures. Today, Federal funding for research is restricted to a small number of embryonic stem cell ``lines'' that were established prior to August 9, 2001. Unfortunately, only 19 of those 78 stem cell lines in existence are available to researchers, as many were found to be contaminated or otherwise unusable. We recognize today that even when a stem cell line is created, it simply cannot reproduce indefinitely. So, many scientists are frustrated, are perplexed that a Federal funding restriction would essentially block their efforts to develop cures. Some have proposed they should use adult stem cells. Yet those involve a detour in the journey to a cure. We know that in order to use embryonic stem cells to make cells which can be used to treat a disease--like diabetes--scientists must learn how to make the cell become the right type. But an adult stem cell is actually already somewhat specialized, so one cannot directly use them to produce many of the types of cells we need to produce new therapies. Some advocates of adult stem cell research say we could try to take such a stem cell and reverse its development--back to an embryonic stage--and then begin the task to develop it into the specialized cell required. It is as if you were driving down an interstate on a trip, took an exit, made a few turns, and then decided to back up--in reverse--all the way to the interstate in an attempt to try another destination. This is not an efficient way to get where you are going. And any scientist will tell you, the more steps you must take, the more chance there is that something simply won't work. Recently some have proposed that scientists could use other types of cells. We have learned recently about stem cells which are found in amniotic fluid--``amniotic stem cells''--which also appear to have potential to develop into different types of tissues. This is an encouraging development, yet much remains to be learned about those cells. The leader of the research group which has just described these cells--Anthony Atala--was recently asked whether his research ends the argument over whether embryonic stem cells are needed. He answered that question simply: It does not, mainly because it's another stem cell choice. And I think you really can't tell which cell is going to be best for which indication, and all cells have advantages and disadvantages. That is truly the statement of a scientist. Because we do not yet know about the full potential of these alternatives to embryonic stem cells. But we do know that embryonic stem cells can develop into any type of cell. That is why losing years in which we could have made progress is so tragic. There is so much that scientists have yet to learn, and while we always hope for quick cures, experience shows that medical breakthroughs typically result from years of concentrated effort--and we cannot wait any longer to embark on that journey. That is why I am a cosponsor of the second bill which we are considering--the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation addresses the critical issue which has inhibited research here in the U.S.--the restriction of Federal funding to only those few stem cell lines which were in existence back in 2001. Our legislation would ensure that Federal research would only use stem cells from embryos which would otherwise be destroyed and would require full consent from the donor before coming into use. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their leadership on embryonic stem cell research. The legislation which they have championed sets a very constrained set of circumstances under which embryonic stems cells may be obtained in order to assure we can move this vital research forward within an ethical framework. Never will an embryo be created for research purposes, nor does this legislation facilitate such studies. This legislation assures that an embryo may be used only when it would not ever be used for infertility treatment. Donation must be voluntary, under full informed consent and no financial or other inducement may be given. The fact is that fertility treatment has allowed many to have families whom otherwise could not. A consequence of this remarkable therapy is that some embryos are created which will not be used. I must note that under the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, it will be the couple who will--under no bias--decide whether they will be used. This legislation facilitates that donation. Today Americans who have faced fertility problems are facing the question of what to do with unused embryos. Indefinite storage is not truly an option--we know that we cannot maintain the viability of these embryos indefinitely. So given the choices available, some couples see the potential to help those suffering from serious disease. It assures that this gift can be given and used to help medical progress. I believe many Americans who have undergone fertility treatment and realized a gift of life in their families will opt to save lives through a donation which promises to save many lives. But it must always be individual conscience that is the determinative factor--and I respect the views and conscience of each and every individual on this matter. There can be no doubt that stem cell research will move forward. The real question is whether our Nation will be engaged--whether our scientists will realize the breakthroughs--whether we will produce the treatments or whether those developments will draw our best minds and new medical investment abroad, where American vision and oversight will not influence the future of medicine. I believe in stem cell research. I believe in it because I cannot look at a person suffering from a debilitating, and even fatal disease and support prohibitions which impede ethical research aimed at alleviating of that suffering. That is why I joined with my colleagues in the Senate in urging President Bush to ease the current restrictions on the use of stem cells so that research can move forward and lives could be saved. That is why I am a sponsor of this legislation. It is why I urge my colleagues to give that bill their support. This is the bill which will make a difference. I urge the President to reconsider this issue, and urge his support. I think back to President Reagan's passing nearly 3 years ago, and remember the outpouring of concern we all had for our former President, and the First Lady and their entire family. We spoke much of the tragedy of Alzheimer's disease and how we must do more to alleviate the suffering. Nancy Reagan inspired us all with her courage--and inspires us no less in her call for research which could alleviate the suffering from so many diseases. Her recent words call out to us, ``A lot of time is being wasted . . . A lot of people who could be helped are not being helped.'' I cannot think of a more significant living memorial to our former President than to allow more research to be done in order to find new cures for diseases affecting millions of people. Today I ask my colleagues to consider allowing individuals--who have through modern medical science, enjoyed a gift of life, to contribute to saving other lives. That is exactly what this legislation does, and that is why we must send this bill to the President and he must sign it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introdnce the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 1198, introduced in the House by Representative Lois Capps. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has long been a champion of the hearing impaired. Together we worked to address hearing impairment in children in 1999, and today we unite again to achieve even greater progress for children. The number of Americans with a hearing loss has doubled during the past 30 years. Most of us associate hearing problems with the aging process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. At the same time, each year more than 12,000 babies in the United States are born with permanent hearing loss. With another 2 to 3 of every 1,000 newborns suffering partial hearing loss, this is the number one birth defect in America. Unfortunately, hearing loss can go undiagnosed for years. In recent years, scientists have stressed how crucial the first years of a child's life are to their future development. Specialists in speech and language development tell us that the crucial period for developing speech and communication in a child's life can begin as early as 6 months of age. Many babies with hearing loss experience delays in speech, language, and cognitive development which compromises the foundation they need for later schooling and success in society. This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they deserve. The ability to hear is a major element of one's ability to read and communicate. To the extent that we can help infants and young children overcome disabilities detected early in life, we will improve their ability to function in society, receive an education, obtain meaningful employment, and enjoy a better quality of life. Without early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the learning curve, literally. before they have even started. They should not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple screening test. For 50 years, expert commissions and task forces have emphasized the need to detect hearing loss early. In 1989, concerned about the lack of progress in this area, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop set a goal that by the year 2000, all infants--at least 90 percent of all births or admissions--would be screened for hearing loss prior to discharge from hospital. Subsequent Federal initiatives, combined with improved technology and concerted action from hospitals and State agencies, have since led to dramatic advances in procedures for early identification. By the beginning of 1993, about a dozen hospitals had instituted essentially universal screening--defined as testing at least 90 percent of all newborns or infants admitted, prior to discharge. In 1997, an expert panel at the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders recommended that the first hearing screening be carried out before an infant is 3 months old in order to ensure that treatment can begin before 6 months of age. The panel also recommended that the most comprehensive and effective way of ensuring screening before an infant is 6 months old is to have newborns screened before they are sent home from the hospital. Yet a 1998 report by the Commission on Education of the Deaf estimated that the average age at which a child with congenital hearing loss was identified in the United States was a 2\1/2\ to 3 years old, with many children not being identified until 5 or 6 years old. Today we have seen substantial progress in screening, 69 percent of babies are now screened for hearing loss before one month of age. This is an increase of 47 percent compared to back in 1998. That improvement is the result of a bipartisan effort I undertook with Senators Harkin and Frist in 1999 when we introduced the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. That act helped states to establish programs to detect and diagnose hearing loss in all newborn children and to promote appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. The legislation funded research by the National Institutes of Health to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention techniques and technologies. The legislation we are introducing today builds on that success. The bill we are introducing today provides the additional assistance necessary to help States in implementing programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that those identified with a hearing impairment get the help they need. Therefore, this legislation assures that reasonable action will be taken to identify hearing loss within the groups of newborns and infants, so we reach each child as early as possible. Furthermore, the bill supports the recruitment, retention, education, and training of qualified personnel and health care providers, which will provide us with the healthcare professionals we need. And finally the legislation sets targets for a long-term follow-up. It requires the development of models that reduce the loss to follow-up of newborns and infants who are identified with a hearing loss through screening. A baby born today will be part of this country's future. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is completed. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Harkin and myself in supporting the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introdnce the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 1198, introduced in the House by Representative Lois Capps. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has long been a champion of the hearing impaired. Together we worked to address hearing impairment in children in 1999, and today we unite again to achieve even greater progress for children. The number of Americans with a hearing loss has doubled during the past 30 years. Most of us associate hearing problems with the aging process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. At the same time, each year more than 12,000 babies in the United States are born with permanent hearing loss. With another 2 to 3 of every 1,000 newborns suffering partial hearing loss, this is the number one birth defect in America. Unfortunately, hearing loss can go undiagnosed for years. In recent years, scientists have stressed how crucial the first years of a child's life are to their future development. Specialists in speech and language development tell us that the crucial period for developing speech and communication in a child's life can begin as early as 6 months of age. Many babies with hearing loss experience delays in speech, language, and cognitive development which compromises the foundation they need for later schooling and success in society. This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they deserve. The ability to hear is a major element of one's ability to read and communicate. To the extent that we can help infants and young children overcome disabilities detected early in life, we will improve their ability to function in society, receive an education, obtain meaningful employment, and enjoy a better quality of life. Without early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the learning curve, literally. before they have even started. They should not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple screening test. For 50 years, expert commissions and task forces have emphasized the need to detect hearing loss early. In 1989, concerned about the lack of progress in this area, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop set a goal that by the year 2000, all infants--at least 90 percent of all births or admissions--would be screened for hearing loss prior to discharge from hospital. Subsequent Federal initiatives, combined with improved technology and concerted action from hospitals and State agencies, have since led to dramatic advances in procedures for early identification. By the beginning of 1993, about a dozen hospitals had instituted essentially universal screening--defined as testing at least 90 percent of all newborns or infants admitted, prior to discharge. In 1997, an expert panel at the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders recommended that the first hearing screening be carried out before an infant is 3 months old in order to ensure that treatment can begin before 6 months of age. The panel also recommended that the most comprehensive and effective way of ensuring screening before an infant is 6 months old is to have newborns screened before they are sent home from the hospital. Yet a 1998 report by the Commission on Education of the Deaf estimated that the average age at which a child with congenital hearing loss was identified in the United States was a 2\1/2\ to 3 years old, with many children not being identified until 5 or 6 years old. Today we have seen substantial progress in screening, 69 percent of babies are now screened for hearing loss before one month of age. This is an increase of 47 percent compared to back in 1998. That improvement is the result of a bipartisan effort I undertook with Senators Harkin and Frist in 1999 when we introduced the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999. That act helped states to establish programs to detect and diagnose hearing loss in all newborn children and to promote appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. The legislation funded research by the National Institutes of Health to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention techniques and technologies. The legislation we are introducing today builds on that success. The bill we are introducing today provides the additional assistance necessary to help States in implementing programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that those identified with a hearing impairment get the help they need. Therefore, this legislation assures that reasonable action will be taken to identify hearing loss within the groups of newborns and infants, so we reach each child as early as possible. Furthermore, the bill supports the recruitment, retention, education, and training of qualified personnel and health care providers, which will provide us with the healthcare professionals we need. And finally the legislation sets targets for a long-term follow-up. It requires the development of models that reduce the loss to follow-up of newborns and infants who are identified with a hearing loss through screening. A baby born today will be part of this country's future. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is completed. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Harkin and myself in supporting the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the way forward for a recapitalization effort critical to our national security and the safety of America's seafarers. I speak of the effort to modernize the fleet of the U.S. Coast Guard known as the Integrated Deepwater Program. There is no question that the Coast Guard desperately requires new assets with which to carry out its missions, and it is our duty to ensure that they receive those tools at the best value to the American taxpayer. For over two centuries, the Coast Guard has protected our shores, and the service has come a long way from its beginnings under the auspices of the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and the U.S. Lifesaving Service. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security, a change that brought with it an increase in missions. Today, its roles include search-and-rescue missions and marine safety enforcement; securing our Nation's ports, waterways, and coasts; carrying out drug and illegal immigrant interdiction operations; protecting our marine environment; and ensuring safety and ease of navigation. President Bush has called the Coast Guard ``the world's premiere lifesaving service,'' and given the new tasks assigned to the service under the Department of Homeland Security, that label now extends far beyond rescuing mariners in duress or stranded hurricane victims. The Coast Guard is also our first line of defense against waterborne terrorist attacks, from suicide bombers such as those who attacked the USS Cole in Yemen, to potential weapons of mass destruction that could be brought to our ports on board container ships. However, the assets we have provided the world's premiere lifesaving service to carry out their critical missions are anything but the world's premiere equipment. The valiant men and women who protect our shores serve aboard vessels that collectively comprise the third oldest naval fleet in the world. These are the same individuals who rescued over thirty thousand people from the rooftops of the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and who, in a single action just last week, prevented over 4,200 pounds of cocaine from reaching America's streets, and schoolyards--the biggest single drug bust ever recorded. Our service men and women deserve better, and the American people deserve better. Which is why the Coast Guard has chosen to modernize its fleet using a program of unprecedented scope. This recapitalization effort, called Deepwater, is a single acquisition program designed to completely overhaul the Coast Guard's entire fleet of ships and aircraft, as well as its communications system and interoperability components. In effect, rather than attempting to manage each asset individually, we chose to manage the new system of assets as a whole, allowing the Coast Guard and the taxpayer to reap the benefits of economies of scale and lack of duplicative effort. When the call for proposals was announced, the group Citizens Against Government Waste called Deepwater ``an innovative answer to the federal acquisition process' systematic waste.'' In June of 2002, the Coast Guard awarded a contract to a joint venture comprised of executives from Lockheed Martin and Northup Grumman and representatives from the Coast Guard itself. This entity is called Integrated Cost Guard Systems, or ICGS. And now, not 5 years later, we have arrived at a crossroads with the Deepwater program that has has found itself in rough seas. High-profile failures of acquisitions, such as the 123-foot patrol boats, and questions about the suitability of the new fleet's flagship, the national security cutter, have led Congress to re-examine the acquisition process. An innovative design for one ship, the fast response cutter, has proven to be a failure, and the Coast Guard, to its credit, has removed that ship from ICGS's control, will soon put forth a request for design proposals, and plans to manage that acquisition independently. Many of these problems stem from the manner in which the Coast Guard structured its Deepwater contract. Too much control was given to ICGS in the contract's first term, including the authority to override Coast Guard engineering decisions, and the ability to ``self-certify'' its own designs and work as meeting the Coast Guard's requirements. To make matters worse, these contracts were structured in such a way that if the assets in development failed to meet the required standards, the contractor would be paid an additional fee to fix the very problem it had created in the first place. I am convinced that it is this contract--and not the concept of a system of systems approach to major acquisitions--that has brought us to where we are today with the Deepwater program. Now the Coast Guard is in negotiations with ICGS for extension of the contract, and there is no question that oversight of the program must change. Several legislative solutions have been proposed, including provisions in both S. 965 and H.R. 1571. While I am pleased to know that the appropriators in both Houses of Congress recognize the importance of Deepwater to the Coast Guard and to the Nation, I strongly disagree with the way in which they have chosen to handle its revision. Ultimately, oversight of Deepwater falls not to the appropriators, but to the service's authorizing committee the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard, on which I serve as the ranking member. The Chair of that Subcommittee, Senator Cantwell, and I have worked together on innumerable Coast Guard issues for years, and we have a detailed understanding of the intricate issues involved both in management of the Coast Guard as a whole and this program in particular. The language in neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations bill provides the best way forward for Deepwater or the Coast Guard. If passed, either version would lead to delays in production and affiliated increases both in the final delivery cost of the assets, and in the size of any patrol gaps the Coast Guard may experience. In simple terms, the appropriators' language will cost the taxpayers money and weaken the security of our maritime domain. Senator Cantwell and I have offered an alternative. Last week, we introduced the Integrated Deepwater Program Reform Act, S. 924. This bill places restrictions on the structure of any agreements between the Coast Guard and its contractors; mandates full and open competition for all Deepwater assets not yet under contract; requires the Coast Guard to conduct an analysis of alternatives to ensure that its Deepwater plan remains the best way to recapitalize the service at the lowest possible cost; and increases reporting requirements to Congress so we can be kept abreast of the program's progress as well as any stumbling blocks that may arise. But most importantly, while this analysis is ongoing, our bill will allow work to continue on assets that have been proven capable of meeting the demands of the Coast Guard's mission portfolio, thereby avoiding costly delays and dangerous patrol gaps. Despite the mistakes of Deepwater's past, I believe we must move forward with this critical modernization of The Coast Guard's fleet. The simple fact is this: The Coast Guard needs new vessels, and a program run as a system of systems, rather than on an asset-by-asset basis will lead to a more efficient and more cost-effective recapitalization. I respectfully ask that the members of the Appropriations Committees in both the House and the Senate remove the clauses in their bills that contain authorization language for the Deepwater program and allow the authorizing committee to do its job through passage of S. 924. We have the best interests of the American people at heart, and we have the necessary expertise to ensure that the Coast Guard and our maritime security do not suffer unintended consequences of even the best- intentioned efforts.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last year on March 20, the President signed S. 2320, which augmented funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program. In light of the historically high energy costs, it was prudent to shift funding to accommodate for the reduced purchasing power of the vital program. As many of us know, disaster was narrowly averted last winter and the summer of 2006. With heating oil at $2.45 a gallon in Maine, we must recognize that energy prices will continue to burden the citizens who are most susceptible to heat and cold in the coming fiscal year. As we know in each of our states, energy is a necessity of life during extreme weather. In fact, it has been found that 73 percent of households have been forced to cut back on, and even go without other necessities such as food, prescription drugs and mortgage and rent payments. The LIHEAP program is, for many low-income families and our Nation's elderly, is the only barrier from nature's elements. This program is a national program. In fiscal year 2006 LIHEAP assisted 5,710,000 households in the United States, including 48,000 households in Maine. In Fiscal Year 2006, the nearly 6 million households that received funding only represented 25 percent of the households eligible for assistance. Unfortunately, that figure illustrates that with the exponential rise in energy prices, this program has become an even more vital program. This is also reflected in level of support from our Nation's governors. On February 15th, a bipartisan group of 35 governors wrote the leadership of the House and Senate stating that ``In 2006, we were grateful that Congress made a significant investment in LIHEAP, recognizing that soaring energy prices required additional funding for the program.'' The letter further reads that, ``We urge you to use the 2006 funding level of $3.2 billion as a base to build from in the future--not a one time emergency investment in energy assistance.'' The letter was signed by governors with diverse political views and from a distinct regions including Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. This is a national program and, accordingly, it has national support. It is incumbent on us to prepare the Nation's budget in light of the year's perceivable threats facing the United States and with our citizens in mind. Current energy prices present an impending crisis for the United State's most vulnerable. The LIHEAP program does not stem the effects of winter, but it quells the effects of energy prices and allays the fears of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. I believe that our Nation's budget should prioritize the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and believe that an increase of an additional $703 million represents a responsible and vital investment. I urge my colleagues to support this program. amendment no. 635

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to draw attention to funding for our Nation's small businesses, which has systematically declined over the last 6 years and is inadequate in both the President's budget and this budget resolution before us. I first commend my colleage, Senator Kerry, for working with me on this bipartisan amendment to restore this critical funding for small businesses. This amendment would restore $97 million in funding to the Small Business Administration, an agency that contributes substantially to our economic growth. Since 2001 the SBA's overall budget has declined by an unacceptable 31 percent. Especially when one considers that small businesses are the backbone of our economy, breathing life into areas once devastated by manufacturing closures, disasters, and economic recessions, it is frankly beyond me why we continue to shrink the resources that actually help our Nation's job creators grow. Just last month, I heard firsthand from over 90 Maine small business manufacturers about the barriers that hinder their success and the programs that have helped manufacturers grow and expand their business like the SBA's 504, 7(a), SBDC and HUBZone programs. However, this budget falls short of providing the very programs that have helped revitalize Maine's and our Nation's communities devastated by over 20,700 manufacturing job losses since 2000. This amendment is about the 25.8 million small businesses and small manufacturers across the country, which are vital to the economic growth and job creation in each of our States. In every State, small businesses are the engine that drives our economy. Small businesses use SBA loans to expand and hire new workers; they receive vital advice from Women's Business Centers, Small Business Development Centers, and Veterans Business Development Centers; and they survive and thrive by obtaining contracts with the Federal Government. These are the people and the businesses my amendment assists. So why does this budget handcuff the very programs that have allowed our businesses and economy to expand? The SBA has helped create and retain over 5.3 million jobs since 1999. It is clear that our economic future depends on the success of small firms, which constitute over 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing enterprises, create nearly three-quarters of new jobs, and produce 50 percent of the gross domestic product. However, we cannot, on the one hand, state how much we value small businesses, and on the other hand, neglect to provide the assistance that small businesses so desperately need to compete. This bipartisan amendment provides funds for the SBA's Microloan Program, which provides loans of up to $35,000 and technical assistance to new and growing small businesses. The administration proposes to eliminate the subsidy for microloans and transfer the technical assistance duties to the entrepreneurial development programs. However, this relatively inexpensive program is critical to our next generation of entrepreneurs. In fact, in my own State of Maine, the Microloan Program has made 94 loans over the last 2 years, for a total of $1.7 million. The elimination of this subsidy will increase interest rates for our Nation's microlenders and micro-entrepreneurs located in rural and underserved communities that have no other resource for financing. Additionally, this amendment provides the critical funding for Small Business Development Centers, SCORE and Women's Business Centers, which served over 1.2 million clients in 2006. Not only has funding for these programs decreased over the last 5 years but the SBA proposes to increase their responsibility to take on microloan technical assistance. These critical programs need and, quite frankly, deserve the resources to reach and assist more small businesses. Moreover, this amendment provides the resources necessary for our small businesses to access prime contracting and subcontracting opportunities. The SBA has failed to fix regulatory loopholes identified by the GAO that allows large contractors to keep small business set-asides. To address a contracting market that has increased to nearly $400 billion a year, the SBA budget needs to increase its resources and provide proper oversight. I would like to point out the irony that the administration's budget supports and funds microloans and assistance for foreign microenterprises, but eliminates, yes, eliminates, all funding for domestic microloans and assistance for American microenterprises. While I fully support aid and assistance to foreign microenterprises, what are we saying with this imbalance? Is this fair? Is this the message we want to send to our Nation's small businesses? How can we justify repeated cuts in funding for loans and assistance here at home? Is this our priority? I think it is not, and this amendment reflects our priorities and our commitment to American small businesses. The $97 million provided for here would make a significant difference to our job-creating small firms and helps them grow, flourish and thrive. My amendment is absolutely necessary for America's small businesses and is an investment in the entrepreneurship and future of this country. I urge my colleagues to support it for the SBA and our small business job creators. If we fail to provide sufficient support to SBA's core lending and business development programs, we threaten to reduce small businesses' ability to compete. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coleman for offering this amendment because it is critical that the Federal budget prioritizes the energy policy initiatives that are working for our Nation. This amendment would include budget authority for the extension of the tax incentives for energy efficient commercial buildings, which has been estimated that by 2010 will save 7 trillion cubic feet, Tcf, of natural gas. To put this figure in context, the United States imported 4.3 Tcf of natural gas in 2005. Furthermore, we must recognize that investments into commercial and residential buildings provides cost savings for decades. The life of an average American vehicle is roughly 12 years, for commercial buildings the estimated lifetime is 75 years and for residential buildings the lifetime is 100 years. It is vital that we encourage the investment into energy efficiency for these buildings in order to receive the aggregate energy savings. Recently, Senator Kerry and I, as chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, heard small business representatives articulate the success of these incentives. However, it is clear that businesses need sufficient lead time to make these investments, reduce risk, and ensure that businesses adopt the most energy efficient infrastructure. This budget must affirm and reflect upon the fact that energy efficiency is the most cost-effective solution to our energy crisis. As the former Assistant Secretary for Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and current director of Google's Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Dan Reicher, stated to the Finance Committee last month, ``Energy Efficiency is the real low-hanging fruit in the U.S. and global economy. Furthermore, I am encouraged that this amendment would include a 5- year extension for the renewable production tax credit. On December 14, 2006, I joined Senators Bingaman and Domenici and 39 other Senators, in writing the President to request that he include a 5-year extension of the renewable energy production tax credit, PTC, for 5 years. The current PTC is due to expire on December 31, 2008, and this does not allow renewable energy businesses to adequately prepare for the long- term. This problem was analyzed in a special report in the Economist, which stated that ``America's incentives for clean energy'' are ``relatively modest compared to Europe's.'' Furthermore, the article illustrates that ``what one politician can mandate, another can terminate--and therein lies one of the biggest risks for clean energy. American politicians have periodically allowed a tax break for wind generation to expire, for example. This caused the industry to falter several times, before the credit was renewed again.'' This country must make a long-term commitment to energy policies that are effective. I am pleased to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of an amendment that my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, and myself have offered to the budget resolution, which will help to ensure that our Nation's courageous veterans receive the benefits and compensation that they have earned in a timely and efficient manner from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Every year, hundreds of thousands of America's finest look to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to process their claims for disability compensation, pensions and other entitlements due them as a result of their unselfish and steadfast service to our Nation. However, according to a VBA Workload Report in 2006, the total number of pending compensation and pension claims increased nearly 17 percent over 2006, from 517,574 to 604,308 cases--and as of last week, the backlog had grown to 647,405 cases. On top of this, our country's aging veterans' population and influx of service men and women who will enter the VA system after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will inexorably lead to an increase in the VBA's workload. The lengthy delay that many veterans endure to receive their benefits from the VA is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I believe it is vital for the Department of Veterans Affairs to have the resources necessary to promptly deliver benefits to veterans by adjudicating and processing their claims in a timely and accurate fashion. Given the critical financial importance of disability payments for veterans and their families, the VA has an undeniable responsibility to maintain an effective delivery system and to take decisive and appropriate action to correct deficiencies as soon as they become evident. On March 7, 2007, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs received testimony from Rick Surratt, the Deputy National Legislative Director of the Disabled America Veterans, who highlighted the staffing shortages that have hindered the VA's ability to process claims. Surratt stated: Past Reductions in staffing levels degraded VA's ability to process and decide disability claims in a correct and timely manner. After falling behind, it never fully recovered. With continued growth in the volume and complexity of claims for disability benefits, VA has not requested the resources necessary to overcome the existing backlog and stay abreast of that growth. . . . On December 4, 2006, Senator Lincoln and I joined with 33 of our colleagues to send a letter to the President, respectfully requesting that his fiscal year 2008 budget submission to Congress includes adequate funding for additional staff and resources necessary to address the growing backlog of pending claims at the VBA. According to the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, the average length of time to process a veteran's disability claim has dropped to 177 days, and the President's new budget will lower that processing time to 145 days. Although Senator Lincoln and I applaud the President's recent efforts to improve the veterans' claims process, we still feel that our Nation's veterans deserve much better. Therefore, our amendment will directly address the staff and resource shortages at the VBA by providing $64.5 million in order to hire an additional 600 disability claims processors. Additionally, the Board of Veterans Appeals, whose workload has increased by 82.5 percent since 2001--to an estimated 40,000 cases by the end of 2007--has seen decreases in staff levels during the same period. As a result, a GAO report found that it took an average of 657 days to resolve these appeals. Our amendment will provide the Board of Veterans Appeals with $4.1 million to hire an additional 32 processors in order to expedite the adjudication process to acceptable levels. I also believe that comprehensive training and skill certification programs must be implemented in order to reduce the claims backlog and ensure that processing personnel make accurate decisions. The prevalence of new and complex disability claims resulting from posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI, provide further evidence of the VA's need for a larger and more advanced processing staff. Thus, our amendment will provide a 1-year cost for increased training resources and quality measures with $400,000 for training and performance support systems and $400,000 for skills certification. 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 veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. At a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 24,000 servicemembers have been wounded since the onset of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Congress must now do everything in its power to answer our veterans' call, to ensure that they receive the benefits that they rightly earned and rightly deserve. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our veterans deserve nothing less.