Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007. Senator Kerry and I are here today offering this legislation because the issue of global warming is no longer seriously open to skepticism. The preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence is irrefutable and the cost of inaction incalculable. It is no longer a question of science--it is now a question of political will. I believe our bill offers a means by which anyone who is honestly committed to addressing global warming can vote to improve our environmental future while preserving our economy. We call for 65 percent reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for all major sectors of our society, and starting in 2010, we put these called-for emissions reductions on a downward glide path to make the reductions realistic yet aggressive. It takes a forward-looking, comprehensive, science-based approach to tackling this issue without putting a stranglehold on our economy. This is the right course at the right cost. While Congress fiddles, alpine glaciers and polar ice caps millions of years old are melting. Sea levels are rising globally. Manmade carbon dioxide levels and the average global temperature have increased at unprecedented levels over the past century--and are projected to increase up to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Meanwhile, the CO2 we continue to release today while we await meaningful action will remain in the atmosphere for at least a century--with concentrations rising in the coming decades. Just think-- CO2 emissions from Henry Ford's very first car are still in the atmosphere. Clearly, we can't afford to wait any longer. And it's not as though we aren't literally catapulting toward a consensus on at least the existence of the problem. We have a Federal agency, NOAA, reporting that 2006 was the warmest year since regular temperature records began in 1895 and the past nine years have been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. Even though the President announced no new direct climate policy changes, he did state in his most recent State of the Union Address that we must confront the serious challenge of global climate change. Just last week, a coalition of ten major U.S. companies came together to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership--Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, General Electric, FPL Group, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, and PNM Resources all have advocated for a mandatory carbon cap-and-trade system--as our bill provides. Even ExxonMobil, long skeptical on anthropogenic global warming, recently saw its CEO state that ``the risk [of climate change] is so great that it justifies taking action.'' Two years ago, I became co-chair of the International Climate Change Taskforce, comprised of respected scientists, business leaders, and elected officials from eight industrialized and developing nations. The first and significant recommendation we published was to prevent global temperatures from rising above 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century--because science suggests that beyond this temperature increase there is a tipping point--a possible abrupt climate change that would have a catastrophic effect on our ecosystems and our society. This bill would prevent us from reaching that tipping point with a required 65 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050--a figure that is both rigorous and realistic. And it does so by both instituting the successful California emissions standards that have already been embraced by other States--including seven northeastern States like my home State of Maine--and that provide industry with predictability and uniformity . . . and also putting in place a flexible but mandatory carbon ``cap and trade'' system that uses the power of the ``invisible hand'' to reduce emissions more cost- effectively for businesses. And to encourage greater investment in renewable energy, we also call for 20 percent of America's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. But at the same time we provide incentives for advanced technologies so that existing industries can actually make investments into cleaner infrastructure. Moreover, with the U.S. comprising only four percent of the world's population yet emitting 20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide, we think it's time our response to this crisis become proportional to our nation's contribution to the problem. And that's why our bill also urges the U.S. to return to the international negotiating table. Global warming is a comprehensive problem that demands the kind of comprehensive approach our bill provides--with measures to minimize the effects on our communities and our ecosystems that other bills acknowledge are inevitable but do not address. Ours is the only climate bill to be introduced that calls for research to assess the vulnerability of coral reefs to increased CO2 deposits, and of marine organisms throughout the marine food web. Our bill also calls for the creation of a ``vulnerability scorecard'' to provide communities with a yardstick for them to measure the potential impact of climate change and make informed decisions to minimize the impact. In the end, government leaders should make no mistake--the public understands the severity of the risk of inaction on this crucial issue, with half of voters reporting in a recent Zogby poll that concerns about global warming made a difference in who they voted for and 58 percent said that combating global warming should be a high priority. So the truth is that elected officials ignore the public's concerns with global warming at their own peril--just as we ignore the danger to the detriment of our children and future generations. The opportunity to stop, and ultimately reverse, global climate change is not open-ended. The clock is ticking . . . and the cost of inaction continues to escalate. We recognize the major cause of global warming and we understand what a solution requires. Now we are compelled to muster the political will to make it happen--and the Kerry-Snowe bill provides a reasonable yet vigorous path to follow. Thank you.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Absolutely. And I have indicated that concern about introducing this resolution in the form of a bill. I also understand that at some point that bill would obviously be converted to a resolution. But I think we should proceed in regular order and have a full and open debate, as the Senator from Virginia has recommended. I think that is consistent with the traditions and practices of the Senate. And certainly this issue is deserving of open debate for the American people.

Ms. SNOWE. For the record, I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan have had numerous conversations. The proposed changes in the resolution that was introduced this evening by the Senator from Virginia certainly reflect many of the concerns of those of us who are the cosponsors of the Biden-Hagel-Levin resolution regarding the troop surge. The changes in the proposed resolution now reinforce the opposition to troop increases. It does enhance the position. It solidifies the unified view of those of us who have adopted a position in opposition to the troop surge. It also helps to advance this debate. Now we can begin on a course of deliberation within the Senate. I join the concerns of Senator Warner and our Republican leader that we should proceed in consideration of a resolution and not proceed out of order on the Warner resolution. It was introduced as a resolution. It should be debated and voted upon as a resolution here in the Senate. I am pleased, because I think it does unite us now that we have had these types of changes that I think go a long way to making a strong statement with respect to the President's proposed strategy of increasing troops in Iraq. I thank the Senator from Virginia for offering this resolution as modified so we can proceed and embark on the deliberations that not only consistently are the traditions of this institution but also are consistent with the views of the people of this country that this issue, which is the preeminent one of our time, deserves a full and open debate.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I want to speak briefly to the resolution that has been introduced by our most respected Member of the Senate, Senator Warner, regarding Iraq. I first ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. SNOWE. I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Virginia, because I do think this resolution reinforces the position of those of us who oppose the troop surge. I couldn't agree with the Senator more about the concerns we have involving the sectarian strife, particularly at a time in which the Iraqi Government has not demonstrated the political resoluteness to confront its own militias, to disarm and demobilize them, to proceed with a political process that would advance in unifying the country. That is long overdue. The time has come for the Iraqi Government and its people to step up and assume those responsibilities. That is why I had for the last few months the deep concern about the increase in the level of troops at a time in which sectarian strife has enveloped the country. It is time for the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi Army to begin to proceed to take responsibility for the internal problems that are developing. We obviously should move in a different direction and place the pressure on them to do what is right.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when reflecting on the attributes that have made our great country prosperous--its free market system, its hard- working and enterprising people, its treasured natural resources--we must not overlook the rule of law as an equal, if not paramount element of the blessings we have secured. Since our Nation's founding, Americans have recognized that the success of worthy enterprises in a functioning market require the government--rather than choosing winners and losers--to consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that bind all actors. While our legal system evolved over the course of centuries to provide for the rule of law throughout our country, the fates of American people and businesses have become increasingly bound to counterparts in the world beyond our borders. Whether called ``Globalization'', ``Internationalization'' or some other moniker, the rapidly growing number of connections between suppliers, consumers and financiers across national boundaries means that agreements breached and laws broken on the far side of the world can harm companies and workers here at home. Yet our government has failed to adapt to this new reality. While foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United States--ours demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of its duty to defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute resolution provisions of various trade agreements. The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the Administration against bringing formal enforcement action against certain trade partners, and China in particular. USTR's handling of the trade effects of China's currency manipulation practices is representative of the problem. In September 2004, a U.S. industry coalition filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth general procedures for the enforcement of U.S. trade rights--alleging that Chinese currency manipulation practices constituted a violation of China's obligations to the United States under World Trade Organization rules, and calling for USTR to conduct an investigation of such practices. USTR rejected the petition on the day it was filed, contending that ``an investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, and practices covered in the petition. The Administration is currently involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes that initiation of an investigation under [the Section 301 process] would hamper, rather than advance, Administration efforts to address Chinese currency valuation policies.'' Shortly thereafter, in November of 2004, a Congressional coalition of 12 Senators and 23 Representatives filed a similar Section 301 petition, which was rejected by USTR on the same grounds. As noted in USTR's rejection of these petitions, current law allows the Executive to decline to initiate an industry- requested investigation where it determines that action under Section 301 would be ineffective in addressing the offending act, policy or practice. The merits of USTR's determination are unreviewable under current law. USTR used this loophole to avoid having to even investigate industry's claim, let alone take formal action against China. And as we now know, the Administration's ``soft'' approach to Chinese currency manipulation has itself proven ineffective in addressing the problem in the two years since these filings. It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign trade practices that Senator Rockefeller and I today introduce the Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, or the ``Trade CLAIM Act''. The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end to ameliorate the effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States. The bill would also grant the Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights. The Trade CLAIM Act would give U.S. businesses and workers a greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. The bill would be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 actions initiated by USTR. By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic pressures. In delinking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial machinations of international relations, this Act would end the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and leave it to the free market--uniformly operating under the trade rules to which our trading partners have already agreed--to decide their fate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when reflecting on the attributes that have made our great country prosperous--its free market system, its hard- working and enterprising people, its treasured natural resources--we must not overlook the rule of law as an equal, if not paramount element of the blessings we have secured. Since our Nation's founding, Americans have recognized that the success of worthy enterprises in a functioning market require the government--rather than choosing winners and losers--to consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that bind all actors. While our legal system evolved over the course of centuries to provide for the rule of law throughout our country, the fates of American people and businesses have become increasingly bound to counterparts in the world beyond our borders. Whether called ``Globalization'', ``Internationalization'' or some other moniker, the rapidly growing number of connections between suppliers, consumers and financiers across national boundaries means that agreements breached and laws broken on the far side of the world can harm companies and workers here at home. Yet our government has failed to adapt to this new reality. While foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United States--ours demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of its duty to defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute resolution provisions of various trade agreements. The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the Administration against bringing formal enforcement action against certain trade partners, and China in particular. USTR's handling of the trade effects of China's currency manipulation practices is representative of the problem. In September 2004, a U.S. industry coalition filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth general procedures for the enforcement of U.S. trade rights--alleging that Chinese currency manipulation practices constituted a violation of China's obligations to the United States under World Trade Organization rules, and calling for USTR to conduct an investigation of such practices. USTR rejected the petition on the day it was filed, contending that ``an investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, and practices covered in the petition. The Administration is currently involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes that initiation of an investigation under [the Section 301 process] would hamper, rather than advance, Administration efforts to address Chinese currency valuation policies.'' Shortly thereafter, in November of 2004, a Congressional coalition of 12 Senators and 23 Representatives filed a similar Section 301 petition, which was rejected by USTR on the same grounds. As noted in USTR's rejection of these petitions, current law allows the Executive to decline to initiate an industry- requested investigation where it determines that action under Section 301 would be ineffective in addressing the offending act, policy or practice. The merits of USTR's determination are unreviewable under current law. USTR used this loophole to avoid having to even investigate industry's claim, let alone take formal action against China. And as we now know, the Administration's ``soft'' approach to Chinese currency manipulation has itself proven ineffective in addressing the problem in the two years since these filings. It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign trade practices that Senator Rockefeller and I today introduce the Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, or the ``Trade CLAIM Act''. The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end to ameliorate the effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States. The bill would also grant the Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights. The Trade CLAIM Act would give U.S. businesses and workers a greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. The bill would be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 actions initiated by USTR. By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic pressures. In delinking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial machinations of international relations, this Act would end the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and leave it to the free market--uniformly operating under the trade rules to which our trading partners have already agreed--to decide their fate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I mourn the loss of Hanley Denning, a truly remarkable native of Maine who in word and deed represented the very best of our State and Nation. Hanley was the visionary founder and executive director of Safe Passage, a Central American-based nonprofit agency which provides children who live in the Guatemala City garbage dump opportunity and hope through myriad forms, including education, nutrition, and health care. Hanley founded Safe Passage in 1999 after having seen children existing amid the squalor and destitution of refuse and trash. But where many would have seen a dead-end marked by desolation, Hanley saw a need which soon after evolved into a calling that required conscience and action. She imagined a pathway out--and possessed the will, determination, and resolve to forge a plan to begin making that route a reality. Hanley took a dilapidated church near the waste dump and developed a drop-in center where children could receive food and a safe haven. Hanley found that access to education of any kind was not a possibility for children who couldn't begin to afford the enrollment fees, school supplies, and books required by the Guatemalan public schools--not to mention requisite school uniforms and shoes. But thanks to Safe Passage, children have been able to attend a local public school for at least a half-day term. And that experience is complemented by the additional educational reinforcement, care, and supervision received at the center. Whether it is homework, hands-on learning activities, nutrition, medical attention, or a range of other programs, these at-risk youth are recipients of the care they deserve. Today, remarkably, Safe Passage serves as many as 600 children ages 2 to 19 years old. Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once famously wrote that ``You see things; and you say, `Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, `Why not?' '' When Hanley saw despair, poverty, and indescribable hopelessness, she must have at first said, ``Why?'' But she responded to an unforgivable, intolerable situation--not with indifference, resignation, or anger--but by saying, ``Why not?'' Why not carve out a way forward for these children that leads from an abject condition to one where the objective is a better way of life. Hanley's response to the deplorable situation she found at the Guatemalan dump is emblematic of her overall approach to so much of her life--one filled with a selfless care for others and a willful devotion to being an agent of good will and positive change. Although she hadn't created Safe Passage until 1999, Hanley had been offering a kind of safe passage for so many during years prior to her arrival in Guatemala. Along with earning a master's degree along the way, Hanley was also working at a mental health center, assisting children affected by AIDS, and teaching in a Head Start program. With this shining example of service, it is little wonder Bowdoin College, her alma mater, recognized Hanley's extraordinary contributions by honoring her with its 2002 Common Good Award. What was so exceptional about Hanley was her longstanding dedication and unfailing determination to address and improve the human condition. She truly exemplified words spoken in 1902 by Joseph McKeen, first president of Bowdoin: . . . institutions are founded and endowed for the common good and not for the private advantage of those who resort to them for education. It is not that they may be able to pass through life in an easy and reputable manner, but that their mental powers may be cultivated and improved for the benefit of society. Hanley's greatest legacy and enduring cause will be memorialized in her name and with her spirit--in a thriving center given to helping those who truly cannot help themselves; a center where, according to a Portland Press Herald account, just last year six Safe Passage students were selected to enroll in Guatemala City's foremost private high schools, where the annual budget has grown from funds in the hundreds to $1.6 million and an employee base of 100, and where more than 500 people from Greater Portland are counted among an emerging force for good of Safe Passage volunteers. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Hanley's parents, Michael and Marina Denning, and her three brothers, Jordan, Seth, and Lucas. Thank you, Mr. President, for affording me the opportunity to speak about this truly exceptional Mainer and American whose memory will be a lasting inspiration to us all.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act. I am proud to join with Senator Bingaman, who has been a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be deprived of any air service. I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. It is a critical element of economic development, vital to move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small- and medium-size cities in rural areas, like Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small- and medium-size communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. This legislation will strike a detrimental provision in the 2003 Federal Aviation Reauthorization. This provision, which would require communities to actually pay to continue to participate in a program that already acknowledges their economic hardship, is patently unfair. Ignoring the promise of the EAS, to protect these communities after deregulating the airlines in 1978, is not an option. Our colleagues have clearly greed with our position, as this provision has been struck down in every appropriations bill since the passage of the 2003 reauthorization. Our bill would make this prohibition permanent. EAS-eligible communities typically have financial problems of their own and rely heavily on the program for economic development purposes. It is obvious to me, Senator Bingaman, and many of my colleagues, that if the 2003 proposal were enacted, it would mean the end of EAS service in dozens of cities and towns across the country. In Maine, which has four participants in the integral EAS program, we would suffer the possible loss of half of our EAS airports. In a small, rural State like Maine, such a reduction would be disastrous to our economy. That is why I feel compelled to reintroduce this legislation. In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable access to air service. And that's why I strongly believe the Federal Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these communities in 1978 to safeguard their ability to continue commercial air service.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act. I am proud to join with Senator Bingaman, who has been a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be deprived of any air service. I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. It is a critical element of economic development, vital to move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small- and medium-size cities in rural areas, like Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small- and medium-size communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. This legislation will strike a detrimental provision in the 2003 Federal Aviation Reauthorization. This provision, which would require communities to actually pay to continue to participate in a program that already acknowledges their economic hardship, is patently unfair. Ignoring the promise of the EAS, to protect these communities after deregulating the airlines in 1978, is not an option. Our colleagues have clearly greed with our position, as this provision has been struck down in every appropriations bill since the passage of the 2003 reauthorization. Our bill would make this prohibition permanent. EAS-eligible communities typically have financial problems of their own and rely heavily on the program for economic development purposes. It is obvious to me, Senator Bingaman, and many of my colleagues, that if the 2003 proposal were enacted, it would mean the end of EAS service in dozens of cities and towns across the country. In Maine, which has four participants in the integral EAS program, we would suffer the possible loss of half of our EAS airports. In a small, rural State like Maine, such a reduction would be disastrous to our economy. That is why I feel compelled to reintroduce this legislation. In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable access to air service. And that's why I strongly believe the Federal Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these communities in 1978 to safeguard their ability to continue commercial air service.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the second-degree amendment currently pending today that Senator Kerry and I have introduced along with Senator Sununu. I would first like to commend my colleague Senator Sununu for taking the initiative and offering the original women's business center amendment that includes critical legislation to keep this longstanding program operating. This second-degree amendment expands upon Senator Sununu's amendment by addressing the continuation of the women's business center sustainability program, a 5-year pilot program that expired in October 2003. I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Kerry, the original author of this program, to find a permanent solution to keep the most experienced centers funded and operating. We cannot afford to ignore, or minimize, the extraordinary contributions America's businesswomen are making to our economy, our culture, and our future. The achievements of women entrepreneurs are undeniable. Women-owned firms generate almost $2.5 trillion in revenues. They employ more than 19 million workers and are the fastest growing segment of today's economy. In my home State of Maine alone, more an 63,000 women-owned firms generate an astounding $9 billion in sales. That is truly a record we can all be proud of. There can be no doubt the Small Business Administration's, SBA, women's business center program has been an indispensable party on the path to success. In 2006, the 99 women's business centers nationwide served more than 144,000 clients across the country. Whether focused on expanding access to more affordable employee health coverage--enhancing Federal contract procurement opportunities for women-owned businesses-- or improving access to capital, the women's business center program has been an invaluable resource to women-owned businesses in my home State of Maine and across the Nation. The fact is, since the program was created in 1988, Congress renewed the program seven times, and made it permanent in 1997. The women's business centers' unique training and counseling has helped clients generate more than $235 million in revenue and create or retain over 6,500 jobs in 2003. This program clearly has a record of success, fostering job growth and providing American small businesses with the opportunity to thrive. Women entrepreneurs continue to face tremendous challenges--access to business assistance, access to capital, and access to Federal Government contracting opportunities. The ``glass ceiling'' in corporate America that led many women to start a small business has been transformed into another obstacle--a ``glass doorway''--between women who want to start and grow businesses and the lending and Federal contract markets these women entrepreneurs seek to enter. Overcoming these obstacles requires that women are provided the business assistance tools they need, which we here in Congress can ensure through the programs and services established within the Small Business Administration. Over the past 4 years as chair of the Small Business Committee and now as ranking member, I have carefully examined the SBA's programs with a particular focus on the agency's initiatives that are intended to foster women-owned businesses. I introduced numerous bills in the 108th and 109th Congress to improve and revitalize these programs. In fact, in July 2006, I led the Small Business Committee in unanimously reporting out the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act, S. 3778. This reauthorization package incorporated a bill, the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act of 2006, S. 3659, that I, along with Senator Kerry, introduced and which was cosponsored by Senator Sununu. The issue before us today is whether to renew and make permanent the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Grants Program, which unfortunately expired in 2003. This amendment is designed to address these issues and improve the programs and services that the SBA delivers across the Nation for women business owners. The need and the impressive record of the women's business centers only supports the reasons for making the program permanent. The centers have proven to be a great value to the communities they serve, so we must ensure their programs and services continue to be available. Two years ago, the funding for the women's business center in my home State of Maine expired. This center, Coastal Enterprises, has struggled since then to find funding necessary to continue providing vital assistance to women entrepreneurs across the State of Maine. Coastal Enterprises has helped women entrepreneurs succeed for over 10 years, and we must ensure the center receives this critical assistance to continue its operation. The duty rests upon us to foster an environment favorable to economic expansion so that each business can travel down their road of success. This amendment achieves that goal--and not by establishing costly new initiatives but by building on successful established programs within the SBA and improving their delivery for the benefit of current and future women entrepreneurs. My responsibility as ranking member of the committee includes ensuring that every woman who owns a small business--or any woman who dreams of owning one--has the resources, the support, and the opportunities they need to embark on their next great entrepreneurial adventure. I ask my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to discuss an amendment that is pending before the Senate, which was offered by the ranking member of the committee, Senator Enzi, which I have introduced along with Senators Enzi and Landrieu. It is a bipartisan amendment to enhance compliance assistance for small businesses. Before I address the amendment, I wish to make a few comments about the minimum wage package we are currently considering on the floor. I thank the leadership on both sides of the political aisle for working together to develop a bipartisan consensus to raise the minimum wage. From the outset, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell set a bipartisan tone in forging a path to increasing the minimum wage. I also thank Chairman Kennedy and the ranking member, Senator Enzi, for working together to develop this bipartisan legislation as well. I think this is a very encouraging beginning to the 110th Congress and hopefully a time we can reach across partisan divides to enact meaningful legislation. I also commend Chairman Baucus of the Finance Committee, along with Senator Grassley, for working to draft the small business tax package that is also incorporated in the minimum wage bill. It was especially refreshing to see both Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley working so closely together to forge a compromise that addresses concerns on both sides of the aisle. By enacting the minimum wage, we will accomplish a legislative win- win by increasing the minimum wage but also at the same time providing small businesses with significant tax and regulatory relief in a way that does not add to our Nation's deficit. That is a great example of the social and fiscal responsibility we must embrace. Small business tax and regulatory relief and increasing the minimum wage do not have to be mutually exclusive. I believe it is time to raise the minimum wage. It is certainly long overdue, since the last time the minimum wage was raised was back in 1997. Given the significant increases in the cost of living since then, most notably the rise in prices in housing, energy, and health care, families need to support themselves, and they certainly cannot do it on less than $11,000 annually. I am deeply concerned as well about the widening wage gap in America, which is creating a burgeoning economic divide when it comes to income. As the chart behind me shows--and I think it is very important because hopefully one of the priorities in this Congress will be to explore policies that will narrow the wage gap in America--according to the latest census data, in 2005, a household in the 90th percentile earned $114,000 more--or 11 times as much--than a family in the 10th income percentile. Moreover, income for households at the top has grown over the last 30 years, while income for households at the bottom has remained flat. A recent BusinessWeek article reported that increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour could raise the pay for 16 percent of the Nation's workforce. So I am unequivocally supportive of this initiative. I also believe, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and previously chair of the committee, that we need to balance the minimum wage increase with a robust package of small business tax and regulatory reform to relieve many of the burdens small businesses continue to face. The fact is, small business is the engine that is driving the economy. It is the one segment of the economy that is actually creating jobs. Three-quarters of all of the net new jobs are created by a small business; therefore, it is in our interest to make sure we can guarantee for the future that this segment of the economy is going to continue to create jobs and to restore the long-term economic vitality of small businesses. Over the past 20 years, which is the subject of this amendment today, the number and complexity of Federal regulations has multiplied at an alarming rate. In 2004, for example, 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 smaller businesses than larger businesses. As illustrated by the chart behind me, it demonstrates unequivocally the disproportionate burden borne by small businesses versus large corporations in order to absorb the impact of more regulations and more rules. It illustrates the conclusion found in a recent report that was prepared by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy that said in 2004 that the per- employee cost of Federal regulations for small businesses 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. This 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 they may continue to create jobs and drive economic growth. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee, I continue to hear from small businesses across the country, in addition to my home State of Maine, which is essentially a small business State where 98 percent of all employers are small businesses. But to give an example of the impact of the regulatory burden, I cite one company, Hammond Lumber Company, which faces the increased cost of regulatory compliance. It is a shining example of the American dream come true. It has been a family-owned company for three generations. They have been thriving in the State of Maine and serving not only Maine but all of New England for more than 50 years. It grew from a company of 41 employees in 1976 to over 300 employees in 2006. Hammond Lumber exemplifies the tremendous spirit of the American entrepreneur. It also demonstrates the pivotal role small businesses play in creating jobs and driving our Nation's economy. However, as Hammond Lumber has grown, so has its regulatory burden. In 1976, its total regulatory cost per employee equaled $98. Last year, it was $441 per employee. I had the opportunity to tour the company. I talked to the owners and talked to the employees. Unquestionably, it is a thriving company. They told us that the burden they were enduring as a result of the regulatory compliance was clearly having adverse consequences. So we need to level the playing field for small businesses and make it easier for them to comply with complex regulations. All too often, small businesses don't maintain staff, don't have the financial resources to comply with Federal complexities, rules, and regulations. This places them at a disadvantage compared to larger companies. It also reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. If the agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulations, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? That is why I have offered this amendment, along with Senator Enzi and Senator Landrieu, which would clarify the small business requirement that exists under Federal law. Our amendment is drawn directly from recommendations put forward by the GAO and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement which passed unanimously in the Senate, became law, back in 1996 when we passed the model legislation to ease the impact on small businesses with respect to the Federal bureaucracy creating rules and regulations. That legislation that became law was intended to ensure that the Federal Government and all of the agencies consider the impact to small businesses of these proposed rules and regulations. One of the most important provisions of this act was a requirement that Federal agencies work to produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy their regulatory obligations. Unfortunately, the GAO has discovered that Federal agencies have ignored these requirements or failed miserably in their attempt to satisfy them. GAO also discovered that the language of the act is unclear in some places about what is actually required of small businesses. Consequently, small businesses were forced to figure out all these complicated regulations on their own. Obviously, this makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve. So my amendment is drawn specifically and directly from the GAO. It 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. These are commonsense, good government reforms, which will provide major relief for small businesses at virtually no cost to the Federal Government. I think it is very important that this amendment be adopted because all too often we have discovered--as underscored by GAO in their recent report--that the agencies find ways or discover loopholes to circumvent the requirement. It is that much easier because they don't want to have to bother to help small businesses comply with regulations, and they use the rationale--or the excuse, I might say--of the ambiguity in law that doesn't allow them to be clear or to provide the assistance directly to small businesses. So we want to remove the ambiguity and we want to be sure that the amendment as represented here today, which would be translated into the statute, will be abundantly clear and specific in terms of how the agencies are going to allow small businesses to comply with these regulations, with the assistance that could be provided by these agencies as well. I think it is also important to stress that this amendment does not place any additional arduous requirements on small businesses. There are no additional enforcement measures. We are just saying that this is important to clarify, so that agencies don't have an excuse for avoiding compliance with this regulation and also providing assistance to small businesses, and doesn't undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulation to the fullest extent they currently enjoy. Furthermore, this amendment was introduced in the form of a bill that enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It was also included last year in the Small Business Reauthorization Act that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Small Business Committee in the 109th Congress. This isn't any new ground. It is straightforward. It will help small businesses, which are doing so much to create jobs in our economy. Frankly, we ought to do more for small businesses. I think this is a sector of our economy which we have overlooked and ignored. There are so many resources that we could make available to small businesses for a minimal cost that I think could leverage job creation throughout this country. I know, in working with the new chair of the Small Business Committee, Senator Kerry, that we are going to look to the future to see what kind of programs we can build upon, what kind of efforts we can make that can help small businesses thrive and flourish and create the jobs that so many parts of our country desperately need and require. I am looking forward to working with Chairman Kerry in that regard, also with Chairman Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee because the underlying bill includes some very significant tax relief measures. Unfortunately, they will expire in the future. In the short term, in some cases, such as small business expensing, I think we have to consider ways to make that expensing requirement permanent because small businesses clearly deserve to have continuity of that provision and the certainty that it is going to be there. I applaud Chairman Baucus for undertaking this initiative as the first action as chair of the Finance Committee in the markup, and it clearly is going to go a long way toward helping to bolster a very significant part of our economy, and that is, of course, small business growth. We want to do more, we should do more, and we can do more. Again, I urge Members of the Senate to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. It certainly is.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to say to Members of the Senate, this amendment would significantly help to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on small businesses throughout this country. The amendment is designed to clarify an existing Federal law that the Senate unanimously passed back in 1996. The Government Accountability Office has suggested that we needed to have further clarification to the existing law because many Federal agencies are circumventing the law. These agencies are using loopholes to ignore requirements under the law that the agencies publish small business compliance guides so that small businesses know how to comply with complex Federal regulations. The agencies have used ambiguity in the law as a rationale for not assisting small businesses. This amendment would clarify existing Federal rules and regulations, by requiring that Federal agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy their regulatory obligations. Because the GAO has found widespread and pervasive disregard of this law by agencies, we felt it was very important to clarify the law so that small business not only gets the assistance it requires but also can meet the regulatory requirements promulgated by the Federal government. As we well know, small businesses face a disproportionate burden of the impact of regulations in rules issued by Federal agencies. In fact, employers with 20 or fewer employees face 44.8 percent more of a regulatory burden than companies with 500 or more employees, in terms of compliance costs per employee. So you can see that for our Nation's small businesses, we clearly need to do better so they can continue to drive our economy, by creating three-quarters of all the net new jobs each year. This amendment will go a long way toward easing the impact of the cost of small business regulatory compliance and making sure the agencies comply with requirements under existing law to provide the support small businesses rightly deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership on this amendment that is so important to the small business sector of our economy. I also thank Chairman Kennedy as well for bringing this legislation to the floor. I rise today in support of the pending modified amendment we will be voting on shortly that has been offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, as well by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to enhance compliance assistance for small businesses. I truly appreciate all those joining me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kerry, Bond, Sununu, and Roberts as cosponsors to this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution honoring an exceptional women's health advocate, Cynthia Boles Dailard, who tragically passed away on December 24, 2006. Cynthia was an extraordinary person and a consummate professional who was passionately committed to the issues she believed in to the everlasting benefit of those who were helped by her enormous dedication. Her zest for living and the spark she carried within her inspired the same in others, especially with respect to improving the lives of America's women. As a United States Senator from Maine, I was immensely pleased to have Cynthia work for me as a legislative aide for issues of particular importance to women. As one of only sixteen females in the Senate currently--and even fewer in the past--one of my major goals has always been ensuring that matters critical to girls and women are represented and addressed in our government. And Cynthia's family should be incredibly proud that, in that regard--and as I began my very first years in the Senate--I couldn't have asked for a better partner with the keen intelligence, vision, energy, and talent she brought to my office. I was extremely grateful to have the benefit of her service to the country and her wide-ranging expertise and acumen--and no one was more committed to the goal of advancing policy pertaining to America's women than Cynthia Dailard. In developing groundbreaking initiatives, she not only served me well, but most critically she served the Nation well with her unfailing dedication to efforts that will reverberate for generations. As such, she was invaluable to me as she helped champion the campaign to improve the quality of life of those in my State and across the country. But above all in her work, Cynthia was effective as an advocate because she was engaged in causes that were a true labor of love. She adhered to those beliefs that motivated her to action, and as a result she made a tremendous difference. She stood as a testament to the ideal of finding a passion and following it--to the fulfillment of oneself and the betterment of all. She also exemplified an intellectual curiosity and a steadfast devotion to learning, for their own sake as well as instruments for improving the greater community--traits that are instructive to us all. All of us who were touched by Cynthia's life are greatly saddened-- she will be forever missed but always remembered and we will hold dear in perpetuity the countless and timeless memories of her. Our thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Scott, and their daughters, Miranda and Julia.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 and I am joined in doing so by a number of my colleagues including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi. The bill we are introducing today represents a triumph of bipartisan collaboration--true consensus-building which is so vital to achieving substantive action for our constituents. Such efforts are certainly not always easy--as so many here today know--I have worked with many of you for more than 10 years on this issue. Today we are on the threshold of a new era, as for the first time, we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold. Indeed, Senator Gregg described this legislation so well when he said it is, truly, ``the first civil rights act of the 21st Century.'' And that is what makes this legislation so unique. For in the past Congress has had to act to address existing discrimination. But today we are acting proactively to address genetic bias, before discrimination becomes entrenched. This type of discrimination is so different than other forms. Because most discrimination is a response to an obvious trait, such as one's gender or the color of your skin. But discrimination based on one's genetic makeup involves actively looking for information on which to discriminate. Because it is so deliberate, one cannot even argue it was--on any level--subconscious or unintentional. It used to be difficult to find such information on which to discriminate. You might be asked if you had a family history of a disorder. But today things have changed dramatically. We have long known about a small number of genes which play a role in some diseases--such as Huntington's Disease, and early onset Alzheimer's. Yet the progress of discovery and study was so slow and tedious. But the Human Genome Project changed all that. Today, with new technology we are seeing an explosive increase in our understanding of genetics and human health. That growing genetic knowledge offers the potential of disease cures and even customized therapies. Even more promising, genetic advances will enable us to actually prevent the development of disease. But this potential . . . and the billions spent in discovering genetic relationships and developing treatments and preventive agents . . . will certainly be in vain if Americans do not avail themselves of these advances. To do so, Americans will need to take genetic tests. But would you do so if you knew that the information about your genetic makeup would be used against you--to deny you employment or health coverage? Some say that kind of discrimination is but a future possibility-- that we can afford to wait until genetic discrimination begins to take a toll. But it already has done so. I learned from the real life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though she has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test, because she worried it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. And Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. Mr. President, what good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit? And we have seen cases where some attempted to mandate genetic testing. Even when this is done to improve the delivery of health care, it must be recognized that once that information is disclosed . . . and is unprotected . . . a future employer or insurer may not necessarily use that information in such a benign way. Yet we recognize that if an individual can avail themselves of a genetic test, they may be able to take action as a result which prevents disease or premature death, and reduces the burden of high health costs. And wouldn't everyone want to see that? I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom we wouldn't have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the Genome project, he explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' Well, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing. The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination based simply upon an individual's genetic information. Some of us saw this danger 10 years ago and the threat it could pose to millions of Americans. I think back to when Representative Louise Slaughter and I first introduced our bills to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance back in the l04th Congress. At that time the completion of the human genome seemed far away. But the science has certainly out-paced Congressional action. The following year, with the commitment of Senators Frist and Jeffords to address this issue, I introduced a bill to ensure we would effectively provide the needed protections to prevent genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. In turn, that bill was the basis for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, to the Fiscal Year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 58-40. While that victory was a notable step forward, unfortunately, it was not followed by the enactment of our bill. It did, however, re-spark the debate--which helped lay the foundation for our subsequent efforts. Indeed, in March of 2002, I was again joined by Senators Frist and Jeffords in introducing an updated version of our bill with the added support of Senator Gregg and Senator Enzi. That bill not only addressed what had become the real threat of employment discrimination but also captured the changing world of science as this was the first bill to include what we had learned with the completion of the Genome Project. In June of 2003, after sixteen months of bipartisan negotiation, we achieved a unified, bipartisan agreement to address genetic discrimination. Today we again introduce the legislation encompassing that agreement, which the Senate has twice passed . . . unanimously. The bill we are introducing again today addresses genetic discrimination in both employment and health insurance based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA--and our legislation does just that. Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well as information on the request or receipt of genetic tests, from being used by the insurer against the patient. Because the fact of the matter is, genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder--and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. At the same time, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment, as we discuss protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers. On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections in the workplace--and there should be no question of this need. As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is very real, and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes more widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build. Indeed, as we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law--for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifies the remedies available to victims of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is discriminated against because of their religion, their race or their DNA, these people will all receive the same strong protections under the law. Indeed, I believe those who have questioned the need for this legislation will see that if we can provide these protections, then individuals can avail themselves of medical knowledge which will not only improve their health, but will reduce health care costs. For employers attempting to address the escalating cost of coverage, isn't it essential to utilize our investment in advancing medical knowledge to prevent disease and disability? Isn't that just the sort of action we need to encourage to reduce health costs and make our businesses, large and small, more competitive? Indeed we have seen the business community recognizing the critical importance of putting our medical investment to work to reduce health costs . . . not discouraging employees from undergoing tests that could prevent disease or death. To that end, I noted during the last Congress that IBM pledged to not use genetic information in its hiring practices or in deciding eligibility for health insurance coverage. This demonstrates an admirable understanding of how such discrimination can harm both individuals and business. It has been more than six years since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. This bill is the product of over a year of bipartisan negotiations and is a shining example of what we can accomplish if we set aside partisan differences in order to address the challenges facing the American people. Certainly this bill was only possible due to the commitment of members working together--setting aside partisanship--and for that I am grateful. I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we shall see this bill again receive the unanimous support of the Senate and that this will allow the House of Representatives to act swiftly to pass this legislation so that the President can sign this bill into law and finally ensure the American public is protected from this newest form of discrimination.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 and I am joined in doing so by a number of my colleagues including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi. The bill we are introducing today represents a triumph of bipartisan collaboration--true consensus-building which is so vital to achieving substantive action for our constituents. Such efforts are certainly not always easy--as so many here today know--I have worked with many of you for more than 10 years on this issue. Today we are on the threshold of a new era, as for the first time, we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold. Indeed, Senator Gregg described this legislation so well when he said it is, truly, ``the first civil rights act of the 21st Century.'' And that is what makes this legislation so unique. For in the past Congress has had to act to address existing discrimination. But today we are acting proactively to address genetic bias, before discrimination becomes entrenched. This type of discrimination is so different than other forms. Because most discrimination is a response to an obvious trait, such as one's gender or the color of your skin. But discrimination based on one's genetic makeup involves actively looking for information on which to discriminate. Because it is so deliberate, one cannot even argue it was--on any level--subconscious or unintentional. It used to be difficult to find such information on which to discriminate. You might be asked if you had a family history of a disorder. But today things have changed dramatically. We have long known about a small number of genes which play a role in some diseases--such as Huntington's Disease, and early onset Alzheimer's. Yet the progress of discovery and study was so slow and tedious. But the Human Genome Project changed all that. Today, with new technology we are seeing an explosive increase in our understanding of genetics and human health. That growing genetic knowledge offers the potential of disease cures and even customized therapies. Even more promising, genetic advances will enable us to actually prevent the development of disease. But this potential . . . and the billions spent in discovering genetic relationships and developing treatments and preventive agents . . . will certainly be in vain if Americans do not avail themselves of these advances. To do so, Americans will need to take genetic tests. But would you do so if you knew that the information about your genetic makeup would be used against you--to deny you employment or health coverage? Some say that kind of discrimination is but a future possibility-- that we can afford to wait until genetic discrimination begins to take a toll. But it already has done so. I learned from the real life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though she has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test, because she worried it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. And Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. Mr. President, what good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit? And we have seen cases where some attempted to mandate genetic testing. Even when this is done to improve the delivery of health care, it must be recognized that once that information is disclosed . . . and is unprotected . . . a future employer or insurer may not necessarily use that information in such a benign way. Yet we recognize that if an individual can avail themselves of a genetic test, they may be able to take action as a result which prevents disease or premature death, and reduces the burden of high health costs. And wouldn't everyone want to see that? I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom we wouldn't have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the Genome project, he explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' Well, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing. The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination based simply upon an individual's genetic information. Some of us saw this danger 10 years ago and the threat it could pose to millions of Americans. I think back to when Representative Louise Slaughter and I first introduced our bills to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance back in the l04th Congress. At that time the completion of the human genome seemed far away. But the science has certainly out-paced Congressional action. The following year, with the commitment of Senators Frist and Jeffords to address this issue, I introduced a bill to ensure we would effectively provide the needed protections to prevent genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. In turn, that bill was the basis for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, to the Fiscal Year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 58-40. While that victory was a notable step forward, unfortunately, it was not followed by the enactment of our bill. It did, however, re-spark the debate--which helped lay the foundation for our subsequent efforts. Indeed, in March of 2002, I was again joined by Senators Frist and Jeffords in introducing an updated version of our bill with the added support of Senator Gregg and Senator Enzi. That bill not only addressed what had become the real threat of employment discrimination but also captured the changing world of science as this was the first bill to include what we had learned with the completion of the Genome Project. In June of 2003, after sixteen months of bipartisan negotiation, we achieved a unified, bipartisan agreement to address genetic discrimination. Today we again introduce the legislation encompassing that agreement, which the Senate has twice passed . . . unanimously. The bill we are introducing again today addresses genetic discrimination in both employment and health insurance based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA--and our legislation does just that. Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well as information on the request or receipt of genetic tests, from being used by the insurer against the patient. Because the fact of the matter is, genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder--and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. At the same time, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment, as we discuss protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers. On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections in the workplace--and there should be no question of this need. As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is very real, and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes more widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build. Indeed, as we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law--for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifies the remedies available to victims of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is discriminated against because of their religion, their race or their DNA, these people will all receive the same strong protections under the law. Indeed, I believe those who have questioned the need for this legislation will see that if we can provide these protections, then individuals can avail themselves of medical knowledge which will not only improve their health, but will reduce health care costs. For employers attempting to address the escalating cost of coverage, isn't it essential to utilize our investment in advancing medical knowledge to prevent disease and disability? Isn't that just the sort of action we need to encourage to reduce health costs and make our businesses, large and small, more competitive? Indeed we have seen the business community recognizing the critical importance of putting our medical investment to work to reduce health costs . . . not discouraging employees from undergoing tests that could prevent disease or death. To that end, I noted during the last Congress that IBM pledged to not use genetic information in its hiring practices or in deciding eligibility for health insurance coverage. This demonstrates an admirable understanding of how such discrimination can harm both individuals and business. It has been more than six years since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. This bill is the product of over a year of bipartisan negotiations and is a shining example of what we can accomplish if we set aside partisan differences in order to address the challenges facing the American people. Certainly this bill was only possible due to the commitment of members working together--setting aside partisanship--and for that I am grateful. I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we shall see this bill again receive the unanimous support of the Senate and that this will allow the House of Representatives to act swiftly to pass this legislation so that the President can sign this bill into law and finally ensure the American public is protected from this newest form of discrimination.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Lincoln, and Collins, S. 280, the bipartisan Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act that requires the United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions for the protection of both our environment and our economy. This legislation takes concrete steps by using a fair, market-based system to once and for all demonstrate leadership on climate change and reduce emissions in the United States. Furthermore, it will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens. Ongoing peer-reviewed scientific and economic research demonstrates that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and economical issues of the 21st century, impacting the planet's weather patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods, heat waves, and droughts. Yet, I have grave concerns that the lack of domestic climate change policy is akin to Nero's approach, fiddling as the planet warms. With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to step up and take action. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that enter the atmosphere today from all sectors of our society will last for generations to come threatening our oceans, our environment and the economic well-being of our country and the world. It is beyond dispute that we cannot afford the price of inaction. The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract concept. Sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting. Indeed, earlier this month the Bush administration listed the polar bear a threatened species. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stated, ``Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors. They're able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments, but there's concern that their habitat may literally be melting away.'' The listing document says that the polar bear's ice habitat that is used as platforms for hunting, mating and resting could vanish within half a century. The majestic polar bear of the Arctic may well be the symbol of climate change just as the bald eagle was when Rachel Carson published her stunning book ``Silent Spring'' in 1962 that linked the DDT pesticide to the fate of our national symbol--and created an environmental conscious for the country. It is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing both domestic and international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies taking domestic actions. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only be met with all the countries of the world working together. That is why when asked by three major independent think tanks--the Center for American Progress in the U.S., the Institute for Public Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the co-chairmanship of the high-level International Climate Change Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a parallel track with the Kyoto Protocol process. The report from this Taskforce, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global policy framework that is both inclusive and fair. The Taskforce, along with Co-chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers of the U.K., includes an international, cross-party, cross-sector collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business and civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and, ultimately, set the score for lasting change. The Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degree Fahrenheit, 2 degrees Centigrade, above the pre-industrial level by the end of the century. The Taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the ICCT Report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts.'' Our Report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''. This goal of the ICCT comports well with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act we are introducing today because the legislation creates a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce manmade carbon dioxide emissions with specific targets to meet specific dates. The bill will also make the U.S. a partner in the vast community of developed countries who have adopted national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions. I believe it will also bring emerging economies to the international negotiating table, such as China, who is predicted to surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010--China who is putting on line one carbon-spewing coal- fired power plant each week. Achieving success for climate change legislation that calls for realistic reductions of greenhouse gases by setting certain targets means disabusing skeptics and opponents alike of cherished mythologies that environmental protection and economic growth are mutually exclusive. The irony is both are actually increasingly interdependent and will only become more so as the 21st century progresses. Robust companies dedicated to reducing emissions are proof-positive ``going- green'' represents a burgeoning sector of our economy, not the drain and hindrance we've been led to believe for so many years. This bill accommodates for the early actions these companies have taken to reduce emissions. And to their credit--the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced emissions even further than required in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. In an act of economic acumen, they are hedging their bets by adopting internal targets. And, these companies are saving money by reducing their energy consumption and positioning themselves to compete in the growing global market for climate-friendly technologies. Any cost-conscious CFO--or forward-thinking CEO for that matter--should admit that to prevent pollution now will most certainly cost less than cleaning it up later. The economics of prevention and stewardship resonate more when you consider property that erodes because of rising sea levels, farm land that fails to yield crops and becomes barren and arid, and revenue opportunities squandered because of dwindling fishing stocks caused by hotter temperatures. These represent real costs to the bottom line--not to mention irreparable damage to our health and quality of life. We procrastinate on these policy imperatives at the peril of both our country and our planet. Congress is quite facile at deferring costs to the future, often with enormous consequences. No one was more aware of this tendency than Abraham Lincoln, who--in his Message to Congress in 1862--offered this challenge to the legislative branch, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.'' We have a choice between an ever more treacherous path of greater environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries. I urge my colleagues to join with those of us who believe we should move forward by taking appropriate actions now for global warming reductions so that we may leave behind a better environment that was bestowed to us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer, with my colleagues Senators Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Lincoln, and Collins, S. 280, the bipartisan Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act that requires the United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions for the protection of both our environment and our economy. This legislation takes concrete steps by using a fair, market-based system to once and for all demonstrate leadership on climate change and reduce emissions in the United States. Furthermore, it will do so without weakening the economic position of the United States or otherwise imposing hardship on its citizens. Ongoing peer-reviewed scientific and economic research demonstrates that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and economical issues of the 21st century, impacting the planet's weather patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods, heat waves, and droughts. Yet, I have grave concerns that the lack of domestic climate change policy is akin to Nero's approach, fiddling as the planet warms. With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to step up and take action. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that enter the atmosphere today from all sectors of our society will last for generations to come threatening our oceans, our environment and the economic well-being of our country and the world. It is beyond dispute that we cannot afford the price of inaction. The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract concept. Sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting. Indeed, earlier this month the Bush administration listed the polar bear a threatened species. Department of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne stated, ``Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors. They're able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments, but there's concern that their habitat may literally be melting away.'' The listing document says that the polar bear's ice habitat that is used as platforms for hunting, mating and resting could vanish within half a century. The majestic polar bear of the Arctic may well be the symbol of climate change just as the bald eagle was when Rachel Carson published her stunning book ``Silent Spring'' in 1962 that linked the DDT pesticide to the fate of our national symbol--and created an environmental conscious for the country. It is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing both domestic and international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies taking domestic actions. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only be met with all the countries of the world working together. That is why when asked by three major independent think tanks--the Center for American Progress in the U.S., the Institute for Public Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the co-chairmanship of the high-level International Climate Change Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a parallel track with the Kyoto Protocol process. The report from this Taskforce, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global policy framework that is both inclusive and fair. The Taskforce, along with Co-chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers of the U.K., includes an international, cross-party, cross-sector collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business and civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and, ultimately, set the score for lasting change. The Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degree Fahrenheit, 2 degrees Centigrade, above the pre-industrial level by the end of the century. The Taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the ICCT Report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts.'' Our Report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''. This goal of the ICCT comports well with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act we are introducing today because the legislation creates a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce manmade carbon dioxide emissions with specific targets to meet specific dates. The bill will also make the U.S. a partner in the vast community of developed countries who have adopted national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions. I believe it will also bring emerging economies to the international negotiating table, such as China, who is predicted to surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by 2010--China who is putting on line one carbon-spewing coal- fired power plant each week. Achieving success for climate change legislation that calls for realistic reductions of greenhouse gases by setting certain targets means disabusing skeptics and opponents alike of cherished mythologies that environmental protection and economic growth are mutually exclusive. The irony is both are actually increasingly interdependent and will only become more so as the 21st century progresses. Robust companies dedicated to reducing emissions are proof-positive ``going- green'' represents a burgeoning sector of our economy, not the drain and hindrance we've been led to believe for so many years. This bill accommodates for the early actions these companies have taken to reduce emissions. And to their credit--the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced emissions even further than required in the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. In an act of economic acumen, they are hedging their bets by adopting internal targets. And, these companies are saving money by reducing their energy consumption and positioning themselves to compete in the growing global market for climate-friendly technologies. Any cost-conscious CFO--or forward-thinking CEO for that matter--should admit that to prevent pollution now will most certainly cost less than cleaning it up later. The economics of prevention and stewardship resonate more when you consider property that erodes because of rising sea levels, farm land that fails to yield crops and becomes barren and arid, and revenue opportunities squandered because of dwindling fishing stocks caused by hotter temperatures. These represent real costs to the bottom line--not to mention irreparable damage to our health and quality of life. We procrastinate on these policy imperatives at the peril of both our country and our planet. Congress is quite facile at deferring costs to the future, often with enormous consequences. No one was more aware of this tendency than Abraham Lincoln, who--in his Message to Congress in 1862--offered this challenge to the legislative branch, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.'' We have a choice between an ever more treacherous path of greater environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries. I urge my colleagues to join with those of us who believe we should move forward by taking appropriate actions now for global warming reductions so that we may leave behind a better environment that was bestowed to us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of proposals that, once enacted, will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burdens which saddle small companies trying to comply with the tax laws. Small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I believe these proposals strengthen their ability to lead the way. I am pleased to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle as we work to move these important initiatives for small businesses from legislation to law. A top priority I hear from small businesses across Maine 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. For that reason, I am introducing 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 am introducing legislation today 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 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 five, seven 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 am introducing with Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007, 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 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 am introducing a bill 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. 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. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of proposals that, once enacted, will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burdens which saddle small companies trying to comply with the tax laws. Small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I believe these proposals strengthen their ability to lead the way. I am pleased to be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle as we work to move these important initiatives for small businesses from legislation to law. A top priority I hear from small businesses across Maine 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. For that reason, I am introducing 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 am introducing legislation today 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 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 five, seven 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 am introducing with Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act of 2007, 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 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 am introducing a bill 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. 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. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these proposals. I ask unanimous consent that the the text of these bills be printed in the Record.