Olympia Snowe

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 have long worked to reduce the burden that Federal regulations bear on small businesses. Over the past twenty years, the number and complexity of Federal regulations have multiplied at an alarming rate. These regulations impose a much more significant impact on small businesses than larger businesses. A recent report prepared for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy found that in 2004, the per-employee cost of Federal regulations for firms with fewer than 20 employees was $7,647. That was 44.8 percent more than the $5,282 per-employee cost faced by businesses with 500 or more workers. That is why today, I rise with Senators Kerry, Enzi, and Landrieu to introduce the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2007. Our bill would clarify requirements that exist under Federal law to ensure that agencies produce useful small business compliance guides that explain, in a readable format, the compliance requirements of complex rules. This ``small,'' targeted reform, which would not create any new rules or requirements, would have a major benefit for small businesses across the country. In 1996, the Senate passed without opposition the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA is a requirement that agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy regulatory obligations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have done a poor job of meeting this requirement. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. The GAO has also found that the language of SBREFA is unclear in some places about what is actually required. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulation. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2007 would close those loopholes and requires agencies to produce quality compliance assistance materials for small businesses. Our bill is drawn directly from the GAO's recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce are merely suggestions about how to satisfy a regulation's requirements without imposing further requirements or additional enforcement measures. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Furthermore, our bill was included as part of the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Small Business Committee in the 109th Congress. All too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the financial resources to comply with complex Federal regulations. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. If an agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This was the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was originally included in SBREFA, and this rationale is just as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, our bill would clarify that a small business compliance guide is required whenever an agency determines that a rule will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''. This would avoid confusion about whether the agency should produce a compliance guide. Second, our bill would also clarify how a guide shall be designated. Under current law, agencies must ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small business compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is unclear. This term would be changed to ``entitle.'' Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using on line searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Third, our bill would clarify how a guide shall be published. SBREFA currently requires that agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but it does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Under our bill, agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides easily accessible and available through their websites. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Fourth, our bill also clarifies when a guide shall be published. Section 212 of SBREFA currently does not indicate when compliance guides should be published. This means that even if an agency was required to produce a compliance guide, the agency may claim that they have not violated that requirement since there is no deadline established for when they had to produce that guide. Under our bill, agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides coincident with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Finally, our bill would clarify the phrase ``compliance requirements.'' At a minimum, this term means what a small business has to do to satisfy the regulation, and when they will know they have met the requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might employ. If, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing should be conducted. Our bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague and friend Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce legislation which we have sponsored since 2004 to ensure the sound fiscal management of our Medicare prescription drug benefit. Together we both supported the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 (MMA), and we remain committed to seeing our seniors able to rely on a high quality, affordable benefit. Today millions of American seniors are at last receiving assistance with the high cost of prescription drugs. For so many, that will make a difference between choosing whether to take needed medications and the other necessities of life. We have indeed come a very long way. We look forward to realizing all the incredible benefits of this coverage as we see the results of more affordable access to prescription drugs--better health for our seniors, and substantial health care savings. This new benefit marks a milestone for Medicare. And that is an apt analogy because today Part D represents a landmark, not a destination. There is no doubt that this benefit is not all it could or should be, but it is a giant step forward in helping millions of seniors to afford medications which are so essential to health care today. For modem drugs not only treat disease, but actually can prevent its development. While we have seen this landmark progress, it has not come without difficulty. Yet today seniors are saving substantially on their prescription drugs and we see reports that four of five enrollees are pleased with the assistance they are receiving. It is undoubtedly the help they are getting which has resulted in such satisfaction. Because the confusion, the complexity, and often a lack of oversight on the plans has created some serious consumer issues which we will continue to address. But today the first issue before us is the cost of prescription drugs in the plans. Over 3 years ago the Congress was given a price tag for this benefit that was simply unrealistic. Recognizing an absence of cost management, I joined with Senator Wyden to address the escalating cost projections we were seeing. Today, some say all is well, as we hear that the estimated cost of the benefit declined somewhat from a peak estimate of about $720 billion over 10 years. Yet I must note that some of the reasons for that reduction are too quickly glossed over. Enrollment is lower than it was estimated to be as more Americans chose to stay in private coverage. We also saw this past year that we failed to reach many of those low income seniors who most needed help. Today as seniors enter their first full year of coverage, we will see a more realistic year--particularly in terms of more beneficiaries facing the donut hole. We have heard estimates that the average senior is saving an average of $1,000 per year, but we should ask how that savings is being achieved. The discovery by many seniors--when they reached the donut hole--that their cost of medications was the same or even higher than what they paid prior to enrolling in Part D--that should be a red flag that we may not be seeing the purchasing power of seniors harnessed for the savings they deserve. Back in 2005 the Medicare Actuary had estimated that drug plans would negotiate a discount of about 15 percent off undiscounted retail prices. So last year we were curious--just how were they doing in Maine? My staff compared prices for the top 24 medications used by seniors and found that our plan prices for those medications averaged less than 12 percent below the price any senior could already obtain, by simply walking into a retail pharmacy. That is not even using membership or association discounts, or using an on-line pharmacy like Drugstore.com--where seniors could obtain better prices. That result-- finding a single senior could do better than a plan--is certainly disappointing. That points to a system that is working well in terms of subsidy, but certainly needs to improve in terms of negotiating substantial discounts. But we are told that the cost of the benefit is lower, and that premiums were stable this year. Yet if you ask what stand-alone drug coverage actually costs this year, CMS will tell you that those premiums have gone up about 10 percent. Not unlike increases in the deductible, the size of the donut hole, and out-of-pocket expense. As Senator Wyden and I learned from GAO reports we have received, the prices of drugs used by seniors have inexorably increased since 2000 at two to three times the inflation rate. So the costs of this program will remain a concern. Most of us envisioned that not only would the taxpayer contribute to helping seniors with drug expenses, but we would realize substantial savings from lower prices on prescription drugs. That is why Senator Wyden and I proposed to achieve some balance in the public private partnership which is Part D today, and it is why today we are again introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act--the MEND Act. In this drug benefit the HHS Secretary should have a proper role in negotiation. Negotiation, not price setting. It is clear that what the Congress intended to do was to create a true public-private partnership, utilizing competitive forces to bring more choices to seniors--in drugs, benefit plan designs, pharmacies, and more. So seniors can vote with their pocketbooks, and we can see their choices in the market influence the kind of benefit they receive. That is not the same as a system in which the government sets prices, and that is why our legislation specifically bans such a practice. Under our legislation, the Federal Government cannot set either prices or formularies--that is absolutely clear. What I believe most of us desire to do is give the present system the best tools to achieve success. That means that the Secretary must have an oversight role. He should be examining performance and pointing out where plans need to improve. But today if he noticed a product on which poor discounts were being achieved, and he attempted to discuss that publicly, he would likely be accused of interference. Further, if a plan reported intransigence in trying to negotiate with a manufacturer, the Secretary could not respond. That makes no sense. It is a disservice taxpayers, beneficiaries, and the plans as well. Our legislation rescinds the ``non-interference'' clause and directs the Secretary to negotiate for any necessary fallback plan, and in addition, to respond to requests for help from plans which cannot obtain reasonable negotiation. We have also added two additional areas in which the Secretary must negotiate. First, as the CBO has stated that negotiation of single- source drugs could yield savings, our legislation directs the Secretary to engage in negotiation regarding those unique products. We also know that some drugs exist because the taxpayer provides substantial support to see them developed. The public deserves a fair price on those products it made possible, so the Secretary should weigh in those cases. Finally, our bill protects beneficiaries by assuring that seniors will have access to a comprehensive coverage option--at least one plan in each region must provide the option to avoid the coverage gap, dreaded ``donut hole''. Today seniors in 11 States simply cannot obtain such coverage and they must at least have the option of protecting themselves. These are reasonable ways to help plans succeed, and to protect both beneficiaries and taxpayers within the public-private partnership on which this benefit rests. I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort, so that we may improve the partnership between private enterprise and the Federal Government in serving our seniors. I ask consent that the bill's text be printed in the Congressional Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have long worked to reduce the burden that Federal regulations bear on small businesses. Over the past twenty years, the number and complexity of Federal regulations have multiplied at an alarming rate. These regulations impose a much more significant impact on small businesses than larger businesses. A recent report prepared for the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy found that in 2004, the per-employee cost of Federal regulations for firms with fewer than 20 employees was $7,647. That was 44.8 percent more than the $5,282 per-employee cost faced by businesses with 500 or more workers. That is why today, I rise with Senators Kerry, Enzi, and Landrieu to introduce the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2007. Our bill would clarify requirements that exist under Federal law to ensure that agencies produce useful small business compliance guides that explain, in a readable format, the compliance requirements of complex rules. This ``small,'' targeted reform, which would not create any new rules or requirements, would have a major benefit for small businesses across the country. In 1996, the Senate passed without opposition the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA is a requirement that agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy regulatory obligations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have done a poor job of meeting this requirement. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. The GAO has also found that the language of SBREFA is unclear in some places about what is actually required. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulation. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2007 would close those loopholes and requires agencies to produce quality compliance assistance materials for small businesses. Our bill is drawn directly from the GAO's recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce are merely suggestions about how to satisfy a regulation's requirements without imposing further requirements or additional enforcement measures. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Furthermore, our bill was included as part of the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act that was unanimously reported out of the Senate Small Business Committee in the 109th Congress. All too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the financial resources to comply with complex Federal regulations. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. If an agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This was the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was originally included in SBREFA, and this rationale is just as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, our bill would clarify that a small business compliance guide is required whenever an agency determines that a rule will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''. This would avoid confusion about whether the agency should produce a compliance guide. Second, our bill would also clarify how a guide shall be designated. Under current law, agencies must ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small business compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is unclear. This term would be changed to ``entitle.'' Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using on line searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Third, our bill would clarify how a guide shall be published. SBREFA currently requires that agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but it does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Under our bill, agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides easily accessible and available through their websites. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Fourth, our bill also clarifies when a guide shall be published. Section 212 of SBREFA currently does not indicate when compliance guides should be published. This means that even if an agency was required to produce a compliance guide, the agency may claim that they have not violated that requirement since there is no deadline established for when they had to produce that guide. Under our bill, agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides coincident with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Finally, our bill would clarify the phrase ``compliance requirements.'' At a minimum, this term means what a small business has to do to satisfy the regulation, and when they will know they have met the requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might employ. If, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing should be conducted. Our bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague and friend Senator Ron Wyden, to introduce legislation which we have sponsored since 2004 to ensure the sound fiscal management of our Medicare prescription drug benefit. Together we both supported the enactment of the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 (MMA), and we remain committed to seeing our seniors able to rely on a high quality, affordable benefit. Today millions of American seniors are at last receiving assistance with the high cost of prescription drugs. For so many, that will make a difference between choosing whether to take needed medications and the other necessities of life. We have indeed come a very long way. We look forward to realizing all the incredible benefits of this coverage as we see the results of more affordable access to prescription drugs--better health for our seniors, and substantial health care savings. This new benefit marks a milestone for Medicare. And that is an apt analogy because today Part D represents a landmark, not a destination. There is no doubt that this benefit is not all it could or should be, but it is a giant step forward in helping millions of seniors to afford medications which are so essential to health care today. For modem drugs not only treat disease, but actually can prevent its development. While we have seen this landmark progress, it has not come without difficulty. Yet today seniors are saving substantially on their prescription drugs and we see reports that four of five enrollees are pleased with the assistance they are receiving. It is undoubtedly the help they are getting which has resulted in such satisfaction. Because the confusion, the complexity, and often a lack of oversight on the plans has created some serious consumer issues which we will continue to address. But today the first issue before us is the cost of prescription drugs in the plans. Over 3 years ago the Congress was given a price tag for this benefit that was simply unrealistic. Recognizing an absence of cost management, I joined with Senator Wyden to address the escalating cost projections we were seeing. Today, some say all is well, as we hear that the estimated cost of the benefit declined somewhat from a peak estimate of about $720 billion over 10 years. Yet I must note that some of the reasons for that reduction are too quickly glossed over. Enrollment is lower than it was estimated to be as more Americans chose to stay in private coverage. We also saw this past year that we failed to reach many of those low income seniors who most needed help. Today as seniors enter their first full year of coverage, we will see a more realistic year--particularly in terms of more beneficiaries facing the donut hole. We have heard estimates that the average senior is saving an average of $1,000 per year, but we should ask how that savings is being achieved. The discovery by many seniors--when they reached the donut hole--that their cost of medications was the same or even higher than what they paid prior to enrolling in Part D--that should be a red flag that we may not be seeing the purchasing power of seniors harnessed for the savings they deserve. Back in 2005 the Medicare Actuary had estimated that drug plans would negotiate a discount of about 15 percent off undiscounted retail prices. So last year we were curious--just how were they doing in Maine? My staff compared prices for the top 24 medications used by seniors and found that our plan prices for those medications averaged less than 12 percent below the price any senior could already obtain, by simply walking into a retail pharmacy. That is not even using membership or association discounts, or using an on-line pharmacy like Drugstore.com--where seniors could obtain better prices. That result-- finding a single senior could do better than a plan--is certainly disappointing. That points to a system that is working well in terms of subsidy, but certainly needs to improve in terms of negotiating substantial discounts. But we are told that the cost of the benefit is lower, and that premiums were stable this year. Yet if you ask what stand-alone drug coverage actually costs this year, CMS will tell you that those premiums have gone up about 10 percent. Not unlike increases in the deductible, the size of the donut hole, and out-of-pocket expense. As Senator Wyden and I learned from GAO reports we have received, the prices of drugs used by seniors have inexorably increased since 2000 at two to three times the inflation rate. So the costs of this program will remain a concern. Most of us envisioned that not only would the taxpayer contribute to helping seniors with drug expenses, but we would realize substantial savings from lower prices on prescription drugs. That is why Senator Wyden and I proposed to achieve some balance in the public private partnership which is Part D today, and it is why today we are again introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act--the MEND Act. In this drug benefit the HHS Secretary should have a proper role in negotiation. Negotiation, not price setting. It is clear that what the Congress intended to do was to create a true public-private partnership, utilizing competitive forces to bring more choices to seniors--in drugs, benefit plan designs, pharmacies, and more. So seniors can vote with their pocketbooks, and we can see their choices in the market influence the kind of benefit they receive. That is not the same as a system in which the government sets prices, and that is why our legislation specifically bans such a practice. Under our legislation, the Federal Government cannot set either prices or formularies--that is absolutely clear. What I believe most of us desire to do is give the present system the best tools to achieve success. That means that the Secretary must have an oversight role. He should be examining performance and pointing out where plans need to improve. But today if he noticed a product on which poor discounts were being achieved, and he attempted to discuss that publicly, he would likely be accused of interference. Further, if a plan reported intransigence in trying to negotiate with a manufacturer, the Secretary could not respond. That makes no sense. It is a disservice taxpayers, beneficiaries, and the plans as well. Our legislation rescinds the ``non-interference'' clause and directs the Secretary to negotiate for any necessary fallback plan, and in addition, to respond to requests for help from plans which cannot obtain reasonable negotiation. We have also added two additional areas in which the Secretary must negotiate. First, as the CBO has stated that negotiation of single- source drugs could yield savings, our legislation directs the Secretary to engage in negotiation regarding those unique products. We also know that some drugs exist because the taxpayer provides substantial support to see them developed. The public deserves a fair price on those products it made possible, so the Secretary should weigh in those cases. Finally, our bill protects beneficiaries by assuring that seniors will have access to a comprehensive coverage option--at least one plan in each region must provide the option to avoid the coverage gap, dreaded ``donut hole''. Today seniors in 11 States simply cannot obtain such coverage and they must at least have the option of protecting themselves. These are reasonable ways to help plans succeed, and to protect both beneficiaries and taxpayers within the public-private partnership on which this benefit rests. I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort, so that we may improve the partnership between private enterprise and the Federal Government in serving our seniors. I ask consent that the bill's text be printed in the Congressional Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to state how proud I was to support Senate Resolution 19, celebrating the life of the late President Gerald R. Ford. It was an honor to commemorate the extraordinary legacy of the 38th President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford, as we have mourned the loss of a treasured national leader and exceptional public servant. President Ford will forever be remembered for his unassailable integrity and decency, at a most difficult and challenging time. He was truly a great American who devoted his life not only to the Nation he loved but also to the finest and most ennobling ideals of public service. Throughout the years, President Ford represented a voice of civility and problem-solving--of consensus-building--and healing. History will record that his contribution to America's story was both indispensable and irrefutable. When our Nation looked to him for assurance, his stalwart character, disposition, and judgment instilled a quiet and renewed confidence in our country. He restored the public trust in the Presidency and in our Government, reminded us of the strength and durability of our Constitution, and engendered a hope that tempered our anxieties and turned our attention once again to the future. During his distinguished 25 years as both a Member and later minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, then-Congressman Gerald Ford never sought the office of Vice President or President, but when in 1974 he faced the daunting task of assuming the highest office in the land, his steadfast dedication to the bedrock principles of hardwork, common sense, and duty--so emblematic of his upbringing and his remarkable career in Congress--prepared him to occupy the White House and served him well over the course of his brief but historic tenure. With an unwavering moral compass, a certain grasp of purpose, and an always-steady resolve, President Ford guided us out of conflict abroad and quelled our concerns here at home and in doing so brought honor to the Oval Office and reassurance to Americans. It is fitting that in football as well as in his public life, Gerald Ford was ever the keystone, the center that held those around him together, who exemplified the essential underpinning that made progress possible. On a personal note, last summer I had the esteemed privilege of cosponsoring--along with Senators Warner, Stevens, and Levin--an amendment offered by Senator John Warner to the 2007 Defense authorization bill that would name our Nation's newest carrier the ``USS Gerald R. Ford.'' In fact, the Navy's entire class of future carriers would be known as the Ford class--in honor of the President we praise. Later this month, that accolade--which the Senate passed unanimously--is expected to come to fruition. Such a bestowal by Navy Secretary Winter would be an appropriate tribute to then-Lieutenant Ford, who, as a sailor in December 1944, encountered a typhoon while aboard the carrier USS Monterey and demonstrated the virtues that would emerge as the hallmark of his unflagging service and sacrifice to our Nation, such as calm and courage amid turmoil, presence of mind to act decisively despite confusion and chaos, and an unflinching will of spirit to help others, even at great personal peril. It has been recounted in the Bob Drury and Tom Clavin book ``Halsey's Typhoon: The True Story of A Fighting Admiral, an Epic Storm, and an Untold Rescue'' that Lieutenant Ford rescued wounded comrades, beat back raging fires, and helped salvage a ship that was ordered to be abandoned. Gerald Ford was integral to the effort driven by the simple belief of the skipper, Captain Ingersoll, that ``we can fix this.'' As part of Admiral Halsey's Third Fleet, they did not give up the USS Monterey in what reportedly was ``one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. military history,'' a disaster where much of the fleet was decimated and more men were purportedly killed than in the Battle of Midway. Mr. President, this story in many ways embodies the essence of this great son of Michigan. The story of the USS Monterey is telling in that--like President Ford--it has for years taken a humble and unassuming place in the American narrative--and yet over time has rightfully grown in stature and acclaim. We also see a disposition and valor in a young sailor that would be brought to bear later in life as a statesman. Lieutenant Ford's reaction to conflagration and crisis was to take action and help tamp it down. Gerald Ford helped bring under control the flames that imperiled the USS Monterey. He would do similarly as President when charged to guide the ship of state--which he did with a fearless, unflappable demeanor. And which he did, to paraphrase President Lincoln, ``with firmness in the right as God [gave him] to see the right.'' And through his eloquence of action, Gerald Ford moved us all to ``strive on to finish the work we [were] in'' . . . and helped ``to bind up the nation's wounds.'' And for that we are eternally grateful. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with First Lady Betty Ford, their children, and the entire Ford family. May God bless and keep President Gerald R. Ford and may God bless the United States of America he so ably led.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the patriotic and exemplary contribution of Morrill Worcester, owner of Worcester Wreath Company in Harrington, ME, who for the past 15 years has undertaken what has become an extraordinary tradition--to donate, transport, and oversee the placement of Maine balsam fir holiday wreaths on the graves of the exceptional service men and women buried and forever extolled at Arlington National Cemetery. It is truly inspiring to see how the actions of one man can transform into such an honorable and moving tribute to America's fallen heroes. Unquestionably, I am immensely grateful to have been part of Morrill Worcester's dream, which began in December of 1992 when he called my office to ask if he could place his excess wreaths on the graves of soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. I never could have imagined that what occurred on that day would evolve remarkably into a nationwide gesture of unfailing gratitude for our troops. During the season of thankfulness and giving, Morrill Worcester's tremendous generosity exemplifies not only the very best of the holiday spirit but also the inherent good will and can-do belief which is the abiding hallmark of Mainers. And what better way to celebrate the joy engendered by that time of year than to pay rightful homage to the countless courageous veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure and protect the many freedoms we cherish everyday. It is on occasions such as this that I could not be more proud to be both a Mainer and an American. This past December Mr. Worcester was joined by 800 volunteers, including Maine Civil Air Patrol Units, local VFW and American Legion Posts, military units, congressional staffers, schoolchildren, Scout troops, and an array of American veterans for the trek down U.S. Route 1 from Harrington to Washington, DC, with 5,000 Maine balsam fir holiday wreaths. In fact, it was on Thursday, December 14, 2006 when the tractor- trailer with the logo ``Wreaths across America'' was parked at the top of the 11th section of the cemetery, with more than 500 volunteers gathered and ready to grace those monuments to heroism with red ribbons, making an already beautiful testament to bravery and valor even more stunning and glorious. The Maine wreaths were also laid on the grave of Edmund Muskie, former U.S. Senator from Maine and Secretary of State, and near the sites of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the USS Maine Memorial. The many white tombstones that one day prior had stood barren now had come to life because of one man and hundreds of dedicated volunteers who, with full hearts and sharing hands, simply took the time to thank those who sacrificed themselves on our behalf--men and women whose undaunted service recalls the timeless words of President John Adams: ``If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?'' With many of America's finest in harm's way, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is more imperative than ever that we remember always that freedom is not free--and there are those who gave the full measure of devotion to protect us and defend our liberty.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today Congress is confronted with how to best provide tax relief to American families earning slightly more than the minimum wage. We can do that by expanding the availability of the child tax credit to more working families. In 2001, I pushed to make the child tax credit refundable for workers making around the minimum wage. As enacted in 2001, a portion of a taxpayer's child tax credit would be refundable--up to 10 percent of earnings above $10,000. In 2004, Congress passed the Working Families Tax Relief of 2004, which increased from 10 percent to 15 percent the portion of the child tax credit that is refundable. Although the legislation increased the amount of the refundable child credit, it failed to increase the number of families eligible for the benefit. The consequences are serious for low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck. It means that tens of thousands of low-income families will be completely ineligible for a credit they should receive. This year, because the income threshold is indexed, only taxpayers earning over $11,750 are eligible to receive the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Low-income families earning less than $11,750 are shut out of the child tax credit completely. For example, a single mother who earns the current minimum wage and works a 40 hour week, for all 52 weeks of the year, fails to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Since the mother earns $10,700, she is a mere $300 away from qualifying for the credit. Worse, if the single mother does not receive a raise the following year, it will be even tougher to qualify because the $11,750 she originally needed to earn is adjusted for inflation and will increase. Today, I am introducing legislation, the Working Family Child Assistance Act, with Senators Lincoln, Obama, and Rockefeller that will enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit this year. My legislation returns the amount of income a family must earn to qualify for the child tax credit to $10,000. Moreover, my bill would ``de-index'' the $10,000 threshold for inflation, so families failing to get a raise each year would not lose benefits. Most notably, my bill is identical to the refundable child credit proposal the Senate passed in May 2001 as part of its version of that year's tax bill. Although I was able to ensure that a refundable child credit would be part of the final bill sent to President Bush, conferees did index the $10,000 threshold to inflation despite my best efforts. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation will allow an additional 600,000 families to benefit from the refundable child tax credit. The Maine Department of Revenue estimates that 16,700 families in Maine alone would benefit from our proposal. Two thousand of these Maine families would otherwise be completely locked out of the refundable child tax credit under current law. For example, my legislation provides a $113 child credit to a mom who earns $10,750 per year. That's money she could use to buy groceries, school books, other family necessities, and even pay rent. Our families and our country are better off when government lets people keep more of what they earn. Parents deserve their per-child tax credit, and my bill rewards families for work. I am committed to this issue and have called on President Bush to work with Congress so we can help an additional one million children, whose parents and guardians struggle every day to take care of them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today Congress is confronted with how to best provide tax relief to American families earning slightly more than the minimum wage. We can do that by expanding the availability of the child tax credit to more working families. In 2001, I pushed to make the child tax credit refundable for workers making around the minimum wage. As enacted in 2001, a portion of a taxpayer's child tax credit would be refundable--up to 10 percent of earnings above $10,000. In 2004, Congress passed the Working Families Tax Relief of 2004, which increased from 10 percent to 15 percent the portion of the child tax credit that is refundable. Although the legislation increased the amount of the refundable child credit, it failed to increase the number of families eligible for the benefit. The consequences are serious for low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck. It means that tens of thousands of low-income families will be completely ineligible for a credit they should receive. This year, because the income threshold is indexed, only taxpayers earning over $11,750 are eligible to receive the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Low-income families earning less than $11,750 are shut out of the child tax credit completely. For example, a single mother who earns the current minimum wage and works a 40 hour week, for all 52 weeks of the year, fails to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Since the mother earns $10,700, she is a mere $300 away from qualifying for the credit. Worse, if the single mother does not receive a raise the following year, it will be even tougher to qualify because the $11,750 she originally needed to earn is adjusted for inflation and will increase. Today, I am introducing legislation, the Working Family Child Assistance Act, with Senators Lincoln, Obama, and Rockefeller that will enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit this year. My legislation returns the amount of income a family must earn to qualify for the child tax credit to $10,000. Moreover, my bill would ``de-index'' the $10,000 threshold for inflation, so families failing to get a raise each year would not lose benefits. Most notably, my bill is identical to the refundable child credit proposal the Senate passed in May 2001 as part of its version of that year's tax bill. Although I was able to ensure that a refundable child credit would be part of the final bill sent to President Bush, conferees did index the $10,000 threshold to inflation despite my best efforts. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this legislation will allow an additional 600,000 families to benefit from the refundable child tax credit. The Maine Department of Revenue estimates that 16,700 families in Maine alone would benefit from our proposal. Two thousand of these Maine families would otherwise be completely locked out of the refundable child tax credit under current law. For example, my legislation provides a $113 child credit to a mom who earns $10,750 per year. That's money she could use to buy groceries, school books, other family necessities, and even pay rent. Our families and our country are better off when government lets people keep more of what they earn. Parents deserve their per-child tax credit, and my bill rewards families for work. I am committed to this issue and have called on President Bush to work with Congress so we can help an additional one million children, whose parents and guardians struggle every day to take care of them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of S. 3988, the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007. After serving with Lane Evans in the House of Representatives for over a decade, I am honored to help introduce legislation that serves as a fitting tribute to a man whose unfaltering efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans went unmatched. I also applaud Senator Obama for introducing this vital legislation at a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past, Senator Obama and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to bolster the military's ability to detect and treat traumatic brain injury, and most recently, we have fought to reduce the backlog of claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA. Once again, I thank Senator Obama for his continuing resoluteness and advocacy for our veterans. Since the beginning of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 1.5 million brave Americans have deployed overseas to take part in the global war on terror. Of those 1.5 million Americans, at least 184,400 have already received medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. It is time the VA and the Department of Defense, DOD, have the capability to provide incoming veterans with timely and efficient medical treatment and postdeployment services. For too long now, provision of these critical services has been hampered by a lack of resources and policy restructuring. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office revealed that the VA faced a budget shortfall of $3 billion, due to the agency's inability to correctly gauge the benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. As a result of spending shortfalls, the VA was forced to dip into contingency funds that could have compromised the funding for other vital veterans programs. In order to remedy these unacceptable deficiencies within the veterans' benefit system, this legislation will significantly enhance the ability of the DOD and the VA to accurately track veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, by creating a data registry that will hold a comprehensive list of VA health care and benefits use. I remind my colleagues that a similar data system was established in 1998 for Gulf War I Veterans, and has been invaluable in assessing the necessary budgetary planning for our injured veterans from that conflict. However, not all combat wounds are caused by bullets and shrapnel. Several studies have indicated that due to the nature of warfare in Iraq--with its intense urban fighting, terrorism and civilian combat-- may cause a spike in the prevalence of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. According to the Veterans' Health Administration, as of October 2006, of the 184,524 Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who have sought care from the VA, 29,041 have been diagnosed as having probable symptoms of PTSD. I strongly believe that we have a commitment to ensure that veterans with PTSD receive compassionate, world-class health care and appropriate disability compensation determinations. It is imperative that we do all we can to detect, diagnose, and treat our veterans suffering from PTSD as quickly as possible, in order to help our veterans and their families move beyond the psychological trauma of war and lead healthy, productive lives. This legislation's proposed data registry will further assist the VA with ongoing medical research into mental health, traumatic brain injury, and many other conditions. This legislation will also require the Department of Defense to conduct in-person physical and mental health exams with every service member 30 to 90 days after deployment to war zone, in order to ensure that potential cases of PTSD are identified and treated in a timely manner. By making the exams mandatory, the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment can be eliminated. Additionally, multiple deployments to combat zones may factor into a higher susceptibility to PTSD, stressing the necessity for mental screening prior to redeployment, in order to ensure that no servicemember experiencing symptoms of PTSD is returned to duty without treatment. If the VA and the DOD continues its current mental health screening policy, nondisclosures of PTSD symptoms will continue to deter early intervention and future VA mental health services. This legislation addresses the difficulties associated with PTSD symptoms that develop over prolonged periods of time. Currently, the window for new veterans to obtain health care at the VA is 2 years. However, in many circumstances, it takes years for PTSD symptoms and other problems related to mental health to emerge. Therefore, this legislation will extend the window for VA mental health care from 2 years to 5 years, ensuring the necessary mental health treatment for all veterans who are struggling to recover from the traumas of war. Further, this legislation will take large steps towards improving the transfer of military and medical records in order for veterans to receive the health care and benefits they deserve. This bill requires DOD to provide each separating service member a full electronic copy of all military and medical records at the time of discharge. By facilitating the enhanced use of electronic records, veterans will be assured the proper access and management of their required care. Currently, a lack of swift access to military records and medical records has hampered the VA's ability to treat veterans in need of care in a timely and effective manner. According to a December 2006 GAO report, while verifying veterans claims of PTSD, regional VA offices are unable to directly access and search an electronic library of medical and service records for all service branches, and therefore, must rely on a DOD research organization, whose average response time to regional office requests is nearly 1 year. Clearly, such a processing delay is not only inexcusable, it is potentially harmful to the veteran and his or her family. Increased access to electronic records will allow the VA to quickly identify the occurrence of stressful events or experiences that may lead to the necessary treatment for PTSD. Finally, this legislation will also require the VA to provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA health care, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of status. Often times, guardsmen and reservists receive limited transition assistance and employment training, largely due to their accelerated demobilization. Thus, this legislation will provide equitable and fair transition services for all returning veterans, regardless of their service branch, component or military status. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our nation holds for its veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. Since the attacks of September 11, millions of brave American men and women have answered our nation's call to service. Congress must now do everything in its power to answer our veterans' call, to ensure that they receive the medical care and treatment that they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Once again, I am pleased to join Senator Obama in introducing S. 988, because I believe it is crucial to the welfare of our Nation's veterans, and I urge my colleagues to voice their support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of S. 3988, the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007. After serving with Lane Evans in the House of Representatives for over a decade, I am honored to help introduce legislation that serves as a fitting tribute to a man whose unfaltering efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans went unmatched. I also applaud Senator Obama for introducing this vital legislation at a time when over 600,000 courageous men and women have returned from combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past, Senator Obama and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to bolster the military's ability to detect and treat traumatic brain injury, and most recently, we have fought to reduce the backlog of claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA. Once again, I thank Senator Obama for his continuing resoluteness and advocacy for our veterans. Since the beginning of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 1.5 million brave Americans have deployed overseas to take part in the global war on terror. Of those 1.5 million Americans, at least 184,400 have already received medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. It is time the VA and the Department of Defense, DOD, have the capability to provide incoming veterans with timely and efficient medical treatment and postdeployment services. For too long now, provision of these critical services has been hampered by a lack of resources and policy restructuring. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office revealed that the VA faced a budget shortfall of $3 billion, due to the agency's inability to correctly gauge the benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. As a result of spending shortfalls, the VA was forced to dip into contingency funds that could have compromised the funding for other vital veterans programs. In order to remedy these unacceptable deficiencies within the veterans' benefit system, this legislation will significantly enhance the ability of the DOD and the VA to accurately track veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, by creating a data registry that will hold a comprehensive list of VA health care and benefits use. I remind my colleagues that a similar data system was established in 1998 for Gulf War I Veterans, and has been invaluable in assessing the necessary budgetary planning for our injured veterans from that conflict. However, not all combat wounds are caused by bullets and shrapnel. Several studies have indicated that due to the nature of warfare in Iraq--with its intense urban fighting, terrorism and civilian combat-- may cause a spike in the prevalence of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. According to the Veterans' Health Administration, as of October 2006, of the 184,524 Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who have sought care from the VA, 29,041 have been diagnosed as having probable symptoms of PTSD. I strongly believe that we have a commitment to ensure that veterans with PTSD receive compassionate, world-class health care and appropriate disability compensation determinations. It is imperative that we do all we can to detect, diagnose, and treat our veterans suffering from PTSD as quickly as possible, in order to help our veterans and their families move beyond the psychological trauma of war and lead healthy, productive lives. This legislation's proposed data registry will further assist the VA with ongoing medical research into mental health, traumatic brain injury, and many other conditions. This legislation will also require the Department of Defense to conduct in-person physical and mental health exams with every service member 30 to 90 days after deployment to war zone, in order to ensure that potential cases of PTSD are identified and treated in a timely manner. By making the exams mandatory, the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment can be eliminated. Additionally, multiple deployments to combat zones may factor into a higher susceptibility to PTSD, stressing the necessity for mental screening prior to redeployment, in order to ensure that no servicemember experiencing symptoms of PTSD is returned to duty without treatment. If the VA and the DOD continues its current mental health screening policy, nondisclosures of PTSD symptoms will continue to deter early intervention and future VA mental health services. This legislation addresses the difficulties associated with PTSD symptoms that develop over prolonged periods of time. Currently, the window for new veterans to obtain health care at the VA is 2 years. However, in many circumstances, it takes years for PTSD symptoms and other problems related to mental health to emerge. Therefore, this legislation will extend the window for VA mental health care from 2 years to 5 years, ensuring the necessary mental health treatment for all veterans who are struggling to recover from the traumas of war. Further, this legislation will take large steps towards improving the transfer of military and medical records in order for veterans to receive the health care and benefits they deserve. This bill requires DOD to provide each separating service member a full electronic copy of all military and medical records at the time of discharge. By facilitating the enhanced use of electronic records, veterans will be assured the proper access and management of their required care. Currently, a lack of swift access to military records and medical records has hampered the VA's ability to treat veterans in need of care in a timely and effective manner. According to a December 2006 GAO report, while verifying veterans claims of PTSD, regional VA offices are unable to directly access and search an electronic library of medical and service records for all service branches, and therefore, must rely on a DOD research organization, whose average response time to regional office requests is nearly 1 year. Clearly, such a processing delay is not only inexcusable, it is potentially harmful to the veteran and his or her family. Increased access to electronic records will allow the VA to quickly identify the occurrence of stressful events or experiences that may lead to the necessary treatment for PTSD. Finally, this legislation will also require the VA to provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA health care, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of status. Often times, guardsmen and reservists receive limited transition assistance and employment training, largely due to their accelerated demobilization. Thus, this legislation will provide equitable and fair transition services for all returning veterans, regardless of their service branch, component or military status. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those brave Americans who served in uniform with honor, courage, and distinction. The obligation our nation holds for its veterans is enormous, and it is an obligation that must be fulfilled every day. Since the attacks of September 11, millions of brave American men and women have answered our nation's call to service. Congress must now do everything in its power to answer our veterans' call, to ensure that they receive the medical care and treatment that they rightly earned and rightly deserve. Once again, I am pleased to join Senator Obama in introducing S. 988, because I believe it is crucial to the welfare of our Nation's veterans, and I urge my colleagues to voice their support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission Act of 2006 with Senator Collins because the people of the Northern Forest region have not shared in the economic prosperity of many parts of the rest of the United States. The bill establishes a Federal-State partnership commission for the purpose of promoting economic development in the communities in the northern forest area of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont through the development of public policy tools and grants designed to build local capacity. The legislation calls for a collaborative regional effort to achieve real progress to enhance not only the forest products industry to preserve the traditional industries of the region, but to catalyze new rural economic and small development and job growth, and slow out- migration. Today, small businesses are fueling the economic growth of the Nation, producing over 50 percent of the gross domestic product and creating three-fourths of all new jobs. Entrepreneurship is a critical element in the establishment of self-sustaining communities that create jobs and contribute broadly to economic and community development. The bill authorizes appropriations of $40 million for economic development grants for fiscal years 2008-2012 that will support existing entrepreneur and small business development programs and projects and support projects for small business innovation research. Funding will also assist the region in obtaining job training, employment-related education and business development and assist in community development. Assistance will be provided to severely distressed and underdeveloped while maintaining the integrity of the region's resources. Many residents of the Northeast region live below the poverty level, in areas of significantly higher than average unemployment rates, with limited access to capital, and with low per capita personal income. Maine's economy has long been based on the bounty of its natural resources--fishing, farming, forestry, and tourism. The very nature of these industries has meant that a significant portion of employment opportunities are seasonal and overall earnings lag behind national averages. Currently, Maine leads the country with the fastest growing poverty rate, tied with Arkansas and Mississippi. As a matter of fact, in 2005, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Maine was the only State other than Louisiana that experienced a decline in economic activity. The entire northern forest region shares many of these common challenges, and as a result, local and State economic development leaders have been receptive to considering other means to create jobs. Currently, there are several independent entities focused on regional economic development, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. However, there is currently no single regional economic development entity focused on the needs of the far Northeast region. Our Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission is expected to complement existing efforts, and I plan to pursue these efforts in the 2007 Farm bill. The Appalachian Regional Commission--ARC--developed in 1965 has proven to be a success and has help transform a region once solely dependent on mining, agriculture and heavy industry to one more reliant on the service and retail industries. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties from 219 to 100. It has cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent and has helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs since 1977. This is the type of assistance that could also be very effective in Northern Appalachian area. I look forward to fostering the rich potential of the northern forest States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York, with its abundance of natural resources and entrepreneurship, and hard working people through the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission to obtain vigorous self-sustaining growth throughout the region.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, among the most consequential tasks Congress will undertake in the coming months is a potentially epoch-defining review of U.S. trade policy occasioned by the looming expiry of numerous trade preference programs, ``fast-track'' Trade Promotion Authority and the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations. The fate of recent trade legislation, mirroring growing acrimony in the public debate over trade policy, portends that Congress will not simply be considering whether to reauthorize certain programs and processes affecting international trade--it will be setting forth a doctrine declaring America's position and powers in an irreversibly interdependent global economy. The complexity of the market forces that can bring both hope and hardship under the modern trade regime mean that few other issues cut across traditionally drawn party, geographic and ideological lines so dramatically. Where the usual political dichotomies don't apply, new ones have been framed to polarize the issue: free-trade versus fair- trade, globalization versus protectionism, growth versus sustainability. Yet above this fray of competing economic theories and realities, a solid consensus has grown around the principle that whatever our trade laws may be, they should be consistently and vigorously enforced. 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 is 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 2 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 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 U.S. 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. America's prosperity is due in no small part to its excellence in assuring the rule of law. It is fundamental to the success of worthy enterprises in a functioning market that the government--rather than choosing winners and losers--consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that bind all actors. It is the extension of this foundational principle of the American economic tradition to the international trade regime that the Trade CLAIM Act seeks to accomplish--and which America's businesses and workers have long been promised.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission Act of 2006 with Senator Collins because the people of the Northern Forest region have not shared in the economic prosperity of many parts of the rest of the United States. The bill establishes a Federal-State partnership commission for the purpose of promoting economic development in the communities in the northern forest area of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont through the development of public policy tools and grants designed to build local capacity. The legislation calls for a collaborative regional effort to achieve real progress to enhance not only the forest products industry to preserve the traditional industries of the region, but to catalyze new rural economic and small development and job growth, and slow out- migration. Today, small businesses are fueling the economic growth of the Nation, producing over 50 percent of the gross domestic product and creating three-fourths of all new jobs. Entrepreneurship is a critical element in the establishment of self-sustaining communities that create jobs and contribute broadly to economic and community development. The bill authorizes appropriations of $40 million for economic development grants for fiscal years 2008-2012 that will support existing entrepreneur and small business development programs and projects and support projects for small business innovation research. Funding will also assist the region in obtaining job training, employment-related education and business development and assist in community development. Assistance will be provided to severely distressed and underdeveloped while maintaining the integrity of the region's resources. Many residents of the Northeast region live below the poverty level, in areas of significantly higher than average unemployment rates, with limited access to capital, and with low per capita personal income. Maine's economy has long been based on the bounty of its natural resources--fishing, farming, forestry, and tourism. The very nature of these industries has meant that a significant portion of employment opportunities are seasonal and overall earnings lag behind national averages. Currently, Maine leads the country with the fastest growing poverty rate, tied with Arkansas and Mississippi. As a matter of fact, in 2005, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Maine was the only State other than Louisiana that experienced a decline in economic activity. The entire northern forest region shares many of these common challenges, and as a result, local and State economic development leaders have been receptive to considering other means to create jobs. Currently, there are several independent entities focused on regional economic development, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. However, there is currently no single regional economic development entity focused on the needs of the far Northeast region. Our Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission is expected to complement existing efforts, and I plan to pursue these efforts in the 2007 Farm bill. The Appalachian Regional Commission--ARC--developed in 1965 has proven to be a success and has help transform a region once solely dependent on mining, agriculture and heavy industry to one more reliant on the service and retail industries. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties from 219 to 100. It has cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent and has helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs since 1977. This is the type of assistance that could also be very effective in Northern Appalachian area. I look forward to fostering the rich potential of the northern forest States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York, with its abundance of natural resources and entrepreneurship, and hard working people through the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission to obtain vigorous self-sustaining growth throughout the region.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, among the most consequential tasks Congress will undertake in the coming months is a potentially epoch-defining review of U.S. trade policy occasioned by the looming expiry of numerous trade preference programs, ``fast-track'' Trade Promotion Authority and the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations. The fate of recent trade legislation, mirroring growing acrimony in the public debate over trade policy, portends that Congress will not simply be considering whether to reauthorize certain programs and processes affecting international trade--it will be setting forth a doctrine declaring America's position and powers in an irreversibly interdependent global economy. The complexity of the market forces that can bring both hope and hardship under the modern trade regime mean that few other issues cut across traditionally drawn party, geographic and ideological lines so dramatically. Where the usual political dichotomies don't apply, new ones have been framed to polarize the issue: free-trade versus fair- trade, globalization versus protectionism, growth versus sustainability. Yet above this fray of competing economic theories and realities, a solid consensus has grown around the principle that whatever our trade laws may be, they should be consistently and vigorously enforced. 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 is 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 2 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 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 U.S. 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. America's prosperity is due in no small part to its excellence in assuring the rule of law. It is fundamental to the success of worthy enterprises in a functioning market that the government--rather than choosing winners and losers--consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that bind all actors. It is the extension of this foundational principle of the American economic tradition to the international trade regime that the Trade CLAIM Act seeks to accomplish--and which America's businesses and workers have long been promised.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Senator Bill Frist, whose sense of public service harkens back to ancient Athens when every citizen, in order to be called an Athenian, served in a public capacity for the good of the state. And it is more than fitting that this Senator, this son of Tennessee, comes from the only place in the United States with a full-scale replica of the Parthenon, for Bill First--like the Athenians of old--sees himself first as a citizen above all else. Senator Bill Frist and I arrived in the U.S. Senate in the same class in 1994. And only 9 years later, he was chosen Senate majority leader-- a rapid ascent by anyone's count. In the time that Senator Frist has served his country in the position of leader, he has worked ceaselessly to translate ideals and principles into tangible improvements in the daily lives of the American people. For me, it has been a tremendous privilege over the years to work closely with him on many issues and serve with him on the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Committees on Commerce, Small Business, and Finance. Senator Frist's allegiance to serving others has been nothing short of exemplary. He went into medicine because he cared about people. His profound dedication to public service--to the American people and the people of Tennessee--grew out of an earlier devotion to thousands of men and women whose dilemmas and struggles Dr. Frist came to understand firsthand. No wonder he takes such great pride in being known as a ``citizen legislator''--and with good reason. As he prepares to leave this Chamber, we recall that when the leader spoke about America's uninsured or the rising cost of health care or about the dangers posed to our communities by the threat of bioterrorism, his insights are rooted, not in theory, but in years of up-close and personal contact with the people who sent him to Washington in the first place. We also remember that Senator Frist was the first practicing physician to occupy a U.S. Senate seat since 1928--in fact the sign on his office door didn't say ``majority leader''--it fittingly read, ``Dr. Bill Frist, M.D.'' He has held his oath of office with distinction, just as he has kept to the 2000-year-old Hippocratic precept ``to do no harm,'' and in fact, he has gone well beyond that tenet, as he has done and will continue to do a world of good. We will miss his perspective and leadership and wish him and Karyn all the best as they pursue this next phase of their life and service together. Lincoln Chafee Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my great friend, Senator Lincoln Chafee, a public servant who exemplifies the idea that superior governance depends on people of good will working for the common good--together. He epitomizes the New England pragmatism in government that sees not weakness but strength in reaching across the aisle to build consensus and make the system work for those it was formed to serve. When I consider Senator Chafee's tenure, I cannot help but think how he has so successfully forged his own pathway and legacy of exceptional service in the U.S. Senate, while honoring the formidable contributions of his extraordinary father, John Chafee. Senator Chafee has brought levelheaded leadership on myriad issues critical to our progress as a people, always with vigilant and careful attention to his beloved Ocean State of Rhode Island. He has been a stalwart colleague and friend in our mutual cause to revitalize and advance the political center, in our concerted effort to answer the challenges facing our Nation by producing not rancor but results, not acrimony but accord. His loss not only diminishes the Senate but is also a loss for the country because we need more voices seeking to craft compromise and consensus to forge solutions, not fewer. Linc Chafee was not only a political neighbor of mine in the center of the political spectrum--where most Americans consider themselves-- but he has been a next-door neighbor in my hallway in the Russell Senate Building, a corridor also appropriately occupied by my good friend Senator Mike DeWine, who also epitomized the finest ideals of public service. So I will profoundly miss seeing them not only in the Senate but also simply walking down the hall outside my office. They were a constant reminder of what is best and most noble about public office. Linc and I worked hand-in-glove on issues of fiscal restraint and accountability by calling for and advocating the implementation of the pay-as-you-go approach to the Federal budget. And I believe it is instructive that he is rightly considered a champion of the environment, even as he championed economic growth. But that is Linc-- for him, issues that may seem mutually exclusive to those with intractable dogmas could coexist naturally in his vision of a world not so easily or appropriately cast in hews of black and white. Indeed, Senator Chafee's fight to strengthen air and water quality standards continues to resonate, a battle he has waged with innovation and resolve by combining business development with environmental advocacy. Unflagging in his dedication to the precepts of personal responsibility and freedom, fiscal accountability, and serving the public interest, Lincoln Chafee has, with honor and distinction, brought intelligence, vigor, and courage to the U.S. Senate from debates about foreign policy and homeland security to marshaling health care efforts to confront breast cancer and long-term care. Whether serving as captain of his university wrestling team, working as a blacksmith at harness race tracks, or serving the highest ideals of public service, Lincoln Chafee has demonstrated an independence, resiliency, and strength of purpose that has made him a credit to this institution and an example for his country. I wish Senator Chafee, his wife Stephanie, and their children all the best for the future. Jim Jeffords Mr. President, I rise to express my enormous gratitude and deep appreciation for my good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords. President John Adams, who served as the first President of this body, once exclaimed. ``If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?'' The answer given through the years by Senator Jim Jeffords has been one marked by the eloquence of his actions. True Yankee independence and integrity are two of the hallmarks distinguishing Senator Jim Jeffords. Our legislative service together dates back to the 97th Congress and our participation together on the house Aging Committee, ironically at much younger ages than we are today. We have also served together on the Senate Finance Committee. And I will forever fondly remember the monthly moderates lunches we attended together, just as I will cherish the lunch we shared in the final days of his distinguished tenure in the Senate. Indeed, so many achievements distinguish this public servant and usher him into a prestigious pantheon of officeholders, whose common denominator is uncommon commitment to addressing tough issues that truly affect the daily life of the people whom they represent. Educated at Yale University and Harvard Law School, this son of a former chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court could have pursued any number of pathways in his life, but it testifies to his strength of character and abundance of integrity that he chose to use his depth of learning, prodigious skill, and expertise on behalf of others with the goal of service--a journey that began with his active duty in the U.S. Navy in 1956 and that continued throughout his 32 years in the Congress. From his days in the U.S. House in the mid-1970s--where he also served with my husband Jock McKernan--to the present, Senator Jeffords made a priority to champion education and the environment and by doing so became one of the best advocates these issues have ever had. In 1975, Senator Jeffords, as the ranking member on the subcommittee on select education, coauthored what would later be known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has provided equal access to education for millions of students with disabilities. Since its enactment, Senator Jeffords has continued to fight for full Federal funding for the law. He has fought to reduce industrial pollution and acid rain, and as a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee he ensured the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act. More recently, Senator Jeffords has introduced legislation that would clean up polluting powerplants and create incentives for investments in clean, renewable power. In 2001, during the tax-cut debate, as we were working to ensure a fair but a fiscally-responsible compromise, Senator Jeffords and I combined to advocate for significant relief for the working poor. In 2003, during intense negotiations, we joined forces to ensure prescription drug benefits for Medicare. And I could not have been more pleased to work with him in authoring the so-called Snowe-Jeffords provision to the historic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I couldn't be more proud that our arguments were not only persuasive in the Senate but ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court after more than 3 hours of oral arguments, as the act--including our provision--was upheld. In the true spirit of statecraft, Jim Jeffords has ennobled not only the art of public affairs but the public affairs component of art. Then-Congressman Jeffords cofounded the Congressional Arts Caucus and has consistently fought for financial support of the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services. Like my State's own Margaret Chase Smith, Senator Jeffords has been a public servant of deep and abiding conscience, buttressed by a profound courage and unwavering love for his State and his country. I wish him all the best. Jim Talent Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Senator Jim Talent, my colleague and friend whose capacity for being a catalyst on issues that he holds dear is truly remarkable--and will be missed in the U.S. Congress. In his first term in the U.S. Senate from Missouri, otherwise known as the Show-Me State, Senator Jim Talent has shown--not just me--but his colleagues and his constituents that he is a person who cares about health care, small business, economic growth, and defense. Whether during his 8 years in the U.S. House or his 4 years in the U.S. Senate, Jim Talent has demonstrated the fortitude and will necessary to meet challenging issues with national implications. In the U.S. House, as a freshman congressman, he introduced the Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994, which became the basis for landmark, bipartisan welfare reform legislation. Never one to turn from a challenge, then-Congressman Talent also managed to get association health plans legislation passed out of the U.S. House, not once but twice. And he built on that success by working on that same issue in the U.S. Senate--indeed, Senator Talent was an essential proponent of this important effort to allow small businesses to pool their resources to lower skyrocketing health insurance costs. I saw firsthand how the same indefatigable energy that was indicative of his commitment in the House was very much on display in the Senate as he worked tirelessly with our leadership, Labor Secretary Chao, the National Federation of Independent Business, and so many others on this critical issue. As we go forward to identify a path forward on this vital matter, Senator Talent's acumen and will to move this issue will be missed in our chamber. I wish Jim Talent and his entire family all the best for what I am certain will be a successful next chapter in his life.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to honor in the highest possible terms and with profound respect, Senator Paul Sarbanes, one of the true giants of this institution, a sterling public servant and an inspiration to the people he has represented for 36 years--30 of them in the U.S. Senate, where he has since become Maryland's longest serving U.S. Senator. I am grateful to call him a dear friend and treasured colleague. A graduate of Princeton University and one of only two Rhodes Scholars in the current U.S. Senate, Senator Sarbanes has brought a remarkable and stellar mind to his venerable legacy of public service. Elected to the U.S. House in 1970 and to the U.S. Senate in 1976, he has served the people of Maryland with exemplary integrity and distinction. The principles of fairness and opportunity have directed his tenure of tireless civic contribution, characterized by a relentless dedication to serving the public interest--a devotion to defending and promoting the common good exemplified by his efforts to enact the law that today bears his name--The Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I also share a bond with Paul Sarbanes that transcends our service together in the U.S. Senate, including our substantial work together on the Senate Budget Committee as well as on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We are both the children of Greek immigrants--both of our parents owned restaurants and inculcated in us a passion and commitment to education, service, and hard work. Paul Sarbanes has been a hero to Hellenic-Americans for decades. On countless occasions I have been referred to as ``one of two Greek- Americans in the U.S. Senate'' and I am so proud that the Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes, has been the other. Whether serving in the Maryland House of Delegates, the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate, Paul has always been driven by the same Hellenic principles that make our heritage and community great. He remains an inspiration to innumerable Hellenic-Americans. As a result of heroic and Herculean service, Paul Sarbanes was honored in June 2003 with the prestigious Paul H. Douglas Ethics in Government Award from the University of Illinois--established in 1992 to honor Senator Douglas, a man often labeled ``the conscience of the United States Senate.'' The award was fittingly designed to honor individuals who have made a substantial contribution to promoting ethics. And Senator Sarbanes also received the Cox, Coleman, Richardson Award for Distinguished Public Service, from Harvard Law School in March 2004. Senator Sarbanes' vigorous and exemplary engagement in matters of public affairs undeniably epitomizes the following admonition from Pericles in his funeral oration more than 2,000 years ago that ``we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.'' Being involved in the civic life of one's community, country, and heritage was not an option for the sons and daughters of Pericles, and it has been an expectation that the legacy of Senator Sarbanes inspires all of us to meet. As much as the Senate will miss his esteemed presence and I will miss his collegiality in this Chamber, I am heartened by our enduring friendship and by a new generation from the Sarbanes family entering public life in the upcoming Congress with John Sarbanes, serving in the U.S. House.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi for the opportunity to speak today on this critical piece of legislation, as well as to commend the Senator from New York, Senator Clinton, for her advocacy and leadership on this most critical issue which is paramount to millions of families across this country, and to Senator Warner, who has also been a leading advocate and champion of this legislation. I certainly want to commend them both for making sure this legislation is coming to the forefront of the Congress in the final days and which, ultimately, will lead to its passage. I, also, want to express my commendations to the sponsor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Mike Ferguson, because this is clearly a very critical issue. He understands firsthand, personally, from his own family circumstances, how important care giving and respite services are for caregivers and how it is so essential and vital to our Nation's families. I know how important this is. In fact, I introduced the first legislation recognizing National Family Caregivers Week back in 1986. It is more than 20 years that I have been involved in such endeavors. There is no question--and it has been irrefutable across this country-- about the necessity of providing more support to those who provide support to families, to ailing family members. The fact is the need is more than $300 billion a year. We, also, know that it takes a tremendous toll on families to provide that care day in and day out. That is why I think we do have a Federal responsibility and obligation to ensure that we can coalesce those resources that can make it easier and to mitigate the impact on those family members who are providing around-the-clock care. When I first became involved in this issue in the House more than 20 years ago, I took it upon myself to visit homes throughout my congressional district in the State of Maine. What I saw was incredible. I saw 80-year-olds taking care of 80-year-olds, doing the most incredible things, medically and otherwise, to provide round-the- clock care to their ailing family members. It was clear to me then that we needed to do more to provide the respite support for family members so they can have the ability to have support outside the family which is critical for them, so they can continue to keep their ailing family member at home but at the same time having the kind of care which is so essential to help them get better. That is what this is all about. It is helping those who need our help. Certainly, to have the support of the type of facilities and services that exist in a particular community which can address their needs and who they can turn to for advice is absolutely instrumental. It, also, leads to a higher quality of life for many because they can be at home, where they can be provided home care. They can be at home and get the kind of support that otherwise would be necessary if they had been institutionalized or hospitalized. In addition, such care can also result in substantial cost savings to the family, to the Government, and to the community, in fact. I think it is in our national interest to provide these benefits. I think, frankly, the support of such care has been all too limited. This is long overdue. That is why I commend Senator Clinton and Senator Warner and some others who have given their support to this type of initiative. We, clearly, have a Federal obligation and responsibility to focus on the kind of respite care that is so essential for allowing people to take care of their ailing family members in a home setting. It certainly eases and mitigates the impact on the Federal costs, whether it is on Medicaid or Medicare. It can save families thousands of dollars a year. This is something that is in our national interest. I think it is also crucial that we ease the burden of this responsibility which is placed on caregivers as well. It is critical that they have access to better information on services and be able to provide it. They are heroes in every sense of the word. We think about life expectancy today and how many years caregiving will be provided by the American family. It can be 17 years, at the minimum, for an elderly parent. I think it gives a dimension to the issue and the problems that are at stake if we fail to provide the kind of support which is necessary. That is why I have introduced legislation, the Refundable Dependent Care Tax Credit. For example, I think we should provide the type of incentives and support to families that enables them to take care of their loved ones at home. When I first visited homes where people were providing this kind of care, I was absolutely astonished at the level of care these individuals were providing their family members. It occurred to me then, and it is one that has remained with me ever since, that we have to do everything conceivably possible to amass the resources and the support for these family caregivers. When you think of the dimensions of the problem, when you think about the demographics in America and the life expectancy, it is all the more crucial that the Federal Government play a role. That is exactly what this legislation is all about. It will provide the kind of resources that are going to be important, it will provide grant support, it will increase the availability of appropriately trained respite care providers and volunteers--again, another aspect to the entire spectrum of resources I think we need to provide these families who are providing the caregiving support. Frankly, we need to have more respite care providers. It eases the burden on these family members so they can do other things in the day, what is required in daily living, that they have the ability to know they can fall back on the type of support which will provide the continuity of care and the level of care their family members certainly deserve. I think this legislation goes a long way in providing that kind of support and eases the burden on those family members who are so devoted to their loved ones. I think, frankly, we will have to do more. That is why, as we are looking at a tax incentive in the overall tax package, we have to give some review to the notion of having a tax credit that is refundable for providing this kind of dependent care. I think it is going to be a wave of the future, frankly, given the dimensions of this problem which is certainly lurking on the horizon. I want to, again, commend Senator Clinton for her leadership in making this possible and to Senator Warner and, of course, Congressman Ferguson, in the House, and all those who supported it--and Chairman Enzi, as well, for his leadership in making sure that the passage of this legislation will become a reality when you consider I think the enormity and the magnitude of the care and support that it will give to families who most deserve it. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry, Landrieu and Vitter to introduce The Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006, a bill that would provide a comprehensive; package of reforms to improve the Small Business Administration's, SBA, disaster loan program. As you know, the entire gulf coast of the United States was ravaged in 2005 by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These natural disasters, unprecedented in scope and economic impact, presented a prime opportunity for the SBA to showcase its programs and resources for small businesses. Unfortunately, SBA's response was subpar at best, leaving some disaster victims waiting three months or more for disaster loans to be processed. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain committed to doing everything in my power to provide small businesses and homeowners with the tools they need to recover from disasters. The SBA is and must be at the forefront of disaster relief efforts. We must ensure that victims of future disasters have access to the resources they need to restore their lives, their businesses, and their dreams. Many of the provisions in this bid have already passed unanimously through the Small Business Committee this year as part of the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006 S. 3778, bipartisan legislation I authored that features sweeping reforms to help the SBA lead with the same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. The committee unanimously approved this legislation and reported it to the full Senate, where it awaits consideration. This bill before the Senate today includes essential provisions that would better assist victims applying for SBA disaster loans. Among other items, this legislation would increase the maximum size of an SBA disaster loan from $1.5 million per loan to $5 million per loan and would make it possible for non-profit institutions to be eligible for disaster loans. Recognizing the increased demand disasters place on all small business lending programs, the legislation establishes a private disaster loan PDL program that allows for PDLs to be made to disaster victims by private banks, which would have to apply to the SBA for eligibility. A business would be eligible for a PDL if the county in which the business is located was declared a disaster area anytime in the last 24 months. The business would not have to show a nexus between its need for a loan, and the disaster that occurred. It would be enough to be located in that county. The SBA would provide an 85 percent guarantee for the loans. In addition, our legislation would provide authorization for the SBA to enter into agreements with qualified private contractors to process disaster loans. It also would require the SBA to provide Congress with a report on how the disaster loan application process can be improved, including methods to expedite loan processing and verification for sources vital to rebuilding efforts. This legislation would also require the SBA to promulgate rules within 6 months that would create a new ``expedited disaster assistance business loan program.'' These short-term loans would have low interest rates similar to regular disaster loans. The program is intended to respond to major disasters, but at the discretion of the SBA Administrator, it can be implemented in the event of any disaster. I firmly believe the product before us is the best package to aid families, businesses, and communities through challenging times following disasters. We must not forget their pain, their determination, and their resolute refusal to walk away from the communities and small businesses they cherish. When a disaster strikes, the spirit, determination, and will of America's small businesses help to create the firm economic foundation, propelling our nation's economic growth forward. Therefore, we in turn must create an atmosphere favorable for small businesses and provide this assistance package to the SBA. We must allow our Nation's small businesses to do what they do best--create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we fail to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for new innovation, and the entrepreneurs reach for the American dream.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Robert Gates to be the 22nd Secretary of Defense. Dr. Gates comes to this position with a lifetime of service to his Nation and fellow Americans. He has served his country in uniform, as a civil servant, a policymaker and as an adviser to six Presidents, both Democrat and Republican. He has also served America by running one of our top institutions of higher learning, Texas A&M University and by serving on the boards of institutions such as the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. It is no coincidence that at his graduation from William and Mary, he was awarded the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award for making the greatest contributions to his fellow man. However, it is his character and ability to lead that will be most critical during this time of sweeping and historic challenges facing the Nation and the Department of Defense. We must satisfy ourselves that Dr. Gates not only has a plan to overcome these challenges but the personality, the drive and the skills to do so. That he once again accepted the call to national service at a time of grave crisis, requiring his departure from his beloved Texas A&M, to me speaks volumes about his character and dedication to service. As the Nation faces the imperative of charting a new course and strategy in Iraq, rising violence in Afghanistan, global terrorism, the threats posed by nuclear states such as North Korea and possibly Iran and the increasing strains on our military, America requires a leader of Bob Gates's caliber, who has the national security experience, the political acumen and the managerial style necessary to mend rifts that have resulted in the loss of America's certainty and optimism. He will be responsible for ensuring a strong working relationship between the Department of Defense and Congress, trust between the civilian and military leadership in the Pentagon, and the credibility of the Department with the American public. To accomplish this in the relatively brief but critical tenure he will have at the Pentagon, he will have to rely on his pragmatism and his ability to work with others to develop consensus in order to create the unified approach that is currently lacking in meeting our Nation's challenges. In his previous service, he has shown he has the ability to work with both sides with a high degree of competency and integrity-- and I believe this capacity to work in a bipartisan fashion is critical to our ability to work through the challenges we face today. One of his primary goals at the Department will be to foster mutual respect between our senior military leaders and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. I look for him to provide our military leaders a clear voice on military operations. I believe he will listen to them and take their advice on such matters as planning for postcombat operations and force structure considerations in a manner that has been too long dormant. As Dr. Gates assumes the helm at the Department of Defense he will be responsible for a variety of challenges ranging from the ongoing transformation of our forces, balancing operations, procurement and modernization accounts so our military forces have the tools they need to prevail now and in the future, to preparing those forces to meet global challenges from the Taiwan Straits to the jungles of South America. Another issue of concern facing Dr. Gates is the Department of Defense's relationship with other executive branch agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence agencies. In Dr. Gates' written answers to the questions posed by the Armed Service Committee, he states that DHS and DOD have the common goal of protecting the United States and that he will support any steps that can be taken to improve and strengthen interagency cooperation so that all agencies are prepared for and able to respond to threats facing the U.S. homeland. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have witnessed egregious intelligence failures and a sweeping reorganization of the entire community. I have also emphasized the need to improve information sharing and strengthen interagency cooperation. Dr. Gates has recently written that he was ``unhappy about the dominance of the Defense Department in the intelligence arena and the decline in the CIA's central role'' and that ``close cooperation between the military and the CIA in both clandestine operations and intelligence collection is essential.'' He also wrote that ``for the last decade, intelligence authority has been quietly leaching from the CIA to and to the Pentagon, not the other way around.'' During General Hayden's nomination hearing, I noted that one of General Hayden's primary challenges would be synchronizing the gears of our Nation's intelligence collection capability. I believe Dr. Gates will now meet the challenge of synchronizing those gears at the Defense Department. As someone who has had worked in the intelligence community for more than 27 years, I am confident that he is up to the task. I implore Dr. Gates to maintain that close cooperation so that, in his words, ``all agencies are prepared for and able to respond to the threats facing the homeland.'' In fact, it was while he was the Director of Central Intelligence in 1992 that he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, about the need for the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to cooperate saying, ``Our national security institutions, especially defense and intelligence, must change--and they are changing dramatically--to meet the new and different challenges of this new and different world.'' At that hearing Dr. Gates also warned us that aside from traditional issues of national security, we should be alert to other dangers such as terrorism that cannot ``be resolved simply through the application of military force or diplomacy.'' Dr. Gates clearly understood then and understands now America's preeminent role in leading the spread of democracy and performing global policing, yet he also recognizes the regional and sectarian nature of 21st century conflict. This sense of historical realism will stand him in good stead as he grapples with what is and will be his greatest and most pressing challenge--the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Dr. Gates is well versed in Middle East affairs, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan--having been the deputy national security adviser during the 1991 gulf war and providing oversight of U.S.-sponsored operations in Afghanistan under President Reagan. More recently, he cochaired a study at the Council on Foreign Studies in 2004 on U.S. relations towards Iran. Among the study's primary recommendations was that the U.S. directly engage with Iran on a diplomatic level and regarding Iranian nuclear programs. He also recently served as part of the Iraq Study Group that is releasing its recommendations regarding U.S. strategic options this week. By all accounts, Dr. Gates spent considerable time in Iraq talking to Iraqis, soldiers, military leaders and diplomats to understand the myriad and intertwined complexities that will shape the future of Iraq. This understanding will be critical as he will have to proceed at full speed when he becomes Secretary--for we are long past the point where time is of the essence. I believe that Robert Gates understands that we are at a critical juncture. As he said in his testimony yesterday, we are not winning the war in Iraq. He is straightforward in his approach and his language, and I believe he will offer a different and pragmatic approach. He rightly said during his testimony that there is not a military solution to Iraq--that this requires a political solution, and I believe he will signal to the Iraqi government that they and the Iraqi people need to decide if an Iraqi nation is more important to them than their sectarian interests. Because we can't decide that for them, and we can't make that happen for them. There is no question that staying the course in Iraq is neither an option nor a plan and that the patience of the Congress and the American people is finite and our presence there is neither unlimited nor unconditional. I urge him to seek the advice of his military commanders regarding the roles and missions of our troops and to work in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to implementing the findings and recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. In closing, it is critical is that this nomination represents a commitment by the administration to unite our Nation to bring a lasting resolution to the war in Iraq. A new perspective at the Pentagon from a Defense Secretary confirmed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, coupled with the release of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's consensus recommendations, must serve as a catalyst for cooperation in establishing a unified plan for progress and transition in Iraq. In fact, with the confluence of these two events, this day must become a pivot point for our presence in Iraq. Bob Gates' temperament, reputation, and experience has prepared him well for this challenging assignment and I have every faith that he will serve our Nation well as the Secretary of Defense. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Dr. Robert Gates to be our 22nd Secretary of Defense.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kerry, Landrieu and Vitter to introduce The Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006, a bill that would provide a comprehensive; package of reforms to improve the Small Business Administration's, SBA, disaster loan program. As you know, the entire gulf coast of the United States was ravaged in 2005 by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These natural disasters, unprecedented in scope and economic impact, presented a prime opportunity for the SBA to showcase its programs and resources for small businesses. Unfortunately, SBA's response was subpar at best, leaving some disaster victims waiting three months or more for disaster loans to be processed. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain committed to doing everything in my power to provide small businesses and homeowners with the tools they need to recover from disasters. The SBA is and must be at the forefront of disaster relief efforts. We must ensure that victims of future disasters have access to the resources they need to restore their lives, their businesses, and their dreams. Many of the provisions in this bid have already passed unanimously through the Small Business Committee this year as part of the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006 S. 3778, bipartisan legislation I authored that features sweeping reforms to help the SBA lead with the same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. The committee unanimously approved this legislation and reported it to the full Senate, where it awaits consideration. This bill before the Senate today includes essential provisions that would better assist victims applying for SBA disaster loans. Among other items, this legislation would increase the maximum size of an SBA disaster loan from $1.5 million per loan to $5 million per loan and would make it possible for non-profit institutions to be eligible for disaster loans. Recognizing the increased demand disasters place on all small business lending programs, the legislation establishes a private disaster loan PDL program that allows for PDLs to be made to disaster victims by private banks, which would have to apply to the SBA for eligibility. A business would be eligible for a PDL if the county in which the business is located was declared a disaster area anytime in the last 24 months. The business would not have to show a nexus between its need for a loan, and the disaster that occurred. It would be enough to be located in that county. The SBA would provide an 85 percent guarantee for the loans. In addition, our legislation would provide authorization for the SBA to enter into agreements with qualified private contractors to process disaster loans. It also would require the SBA to provide Congress with a report on how the disaster loan application process can be improved, including methods to expedite loan processing and verification for sources vital to rebuilding efforts. This legislation would also require the SBA to promulgate rules within 6 months that would create a new ``expedited disaster assistance business loan program.'' These short-term loans would have low interest rates similar to regular disaster loans. The program is intended to respond to major disasters, but at the discretion of the SBA Administrator, it can be implemented in the event of any disaster. I firmly believe the product before us is the best package to aid families, businesses, and communities through challenging times following disasters. We must not forget their pain, their determination, and their resolute refusal to walk away from the communities and small businesses they cherish. When a disaster strikes, the spirit, determination, and will of America's small businesses help to create the firm economic foundation, propelling our nation's economic growth forward. Therefore, we in turn must create an atmosphere favorable for small businesses and provide this assistance package to the SBA. We must allow our Nation's small businesses to do what they do best--create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we fail to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for new innovation, and the entrepreneurs reach for the American dream.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to inform the members of the committee that the committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Russell 428A on the Nomination of Jovita Carranza to be the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and recognize with the highest esteem Mr. Alan Johnston of Windsor, ME, for the tremendous courage and enormous valor he demonstrated in Iraq in 2004 that helped save many lives. CPT Aaron P. Hill of the U.S. Marine Corps recounted in a witness statement that Alan Johnston's heroic actions on August 7, 2004, had he been in military uniform, would have earned him a medal. Mr. Johnston, a civilian contractor who was overseeing construction of two medical clinics in Iraq, acted swiftly and selflessly to rescue others during a suicide attack on the headquarters facility at the Al Kasik Military Base located approximately 35 miles northwest of Mosul, Iraq. Captain Hill was part of a unit advising Iraqi soldiers in Northern Iraq. He credits Mr. Johnston with saving a number of lives after insurgents drove two water trucks packed with as many as 8,000 pounds of explosives to the headquarters building. The blasts from this insurgent attack lasted over 90 minutes and destroyed the 2-level headquarters building, resulting in 14 deaths and an estimated 40 severely to critically injured people. Acting without hesitation, Mr. Johnston sounded the alarm, throwing those around him to the floor, saving many lives. In the devastation that followed, acting with total disregard to his own safety, Mr. Johnston emerged from the wreckage and began to assist in evacuating and treating the survivors. Despite the continuing barrage of mortars and rockets, Mr. Johnston continued to offer help with his medical expertise, calm demeanor, and steadfast devotion to helping his fellow man. Mr. Johnston not only reduced casualties and treated the wounded but restored critical support systems, including power and water. He also helped to find ways to feed the thousands of Iraqi soldiers dependent on the American military for support. Alan Johnston, a 6-year veteran of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and an emergency medical technician for nearly 18 years, suffered injuries to his head and leg but treated himself and remained at the base in Iraq for 3 months after the attack. He left Iraq in December of 2004 and underwent another series of leg surgeries once he returned to the United States. As a result of Captain Hill's eyewitness account of Alan Johnston's actions, last month I had the solemn privilege of pinning the Defense of Freedom Medal on Mr. Johnston's lapel at a medal ceremony held at my Augusta, ME, office with Mr. Johnston's family present, officially acknowledging these courageous actions. This award is a rare and unique commendation issued only to civilians and is equivalent to the Purple Heart awarded to military service men and women. But what is most remarkable is that this occasion marked the first time a civilian, private contractor was awarded this particular medal. Mr. Johnston's lifesaving response to serve and sacrifice on behalf of others was something he chose to do. It was not his duty. It was not his responsibility it was his goodwill and American patriotism that drove him to put his life at risk in order to assist and save others. There is only one word that sufficiently describes this exemplary Mainer, and that word is hero. I was extremely proud to present him with the Defense of Freedom Medal. Mr. Johnston's awe-inspiring willingness to think of others ahead of himself will forever be remembered by those whose lives he touched and saved that day. The courageous commitment and valiant care demonstrated by Alan Johnston of Windsor, ME, exemplifies the very best of what it means to be a Mainer and an American

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to ask unanimous consent to approve H.R. 6159, a bill passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday that would provide a short-term extension of the Small Business Administration, SBA, and all of its programs. In particular, it ensures the continued authority, through February 2, 2007, of the SBA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, the Small Business Development Center Drug-Free Workplace Grants, the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, and also the SBA's Cosponsorship and Gift Acceptance Authority. Currently, many of the SBA's programs, authorities, or provisions authorized under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2006. While most of the SBA's programs can operate through appropriations and the Continuing Resolution, this bill makes certain that the SBA will continue its vital small business lending programs such as the 7(a) loan guaranty program; the Certified Development Company program; and the Small Business Investment Companies program. On July 27, 2006, the Small Business Committee unanimously reported out the Small Business Improvements and Reauthorization Act of 2006 (S. 3778), a comprehensive, bipartisan bill which reauthorizes the SBA for the next 3 years. This bill is a product of the committee's work over the last 2 years and includes many critical provisions to improve and revitalize the SBA and its programs. My SBA Reauthorization bill will enhance the SBA's role in assisting American small businesses to thrive and grow, through the agency's lending programs as well as other programs and services. Most importantly, it will enable the agency to help small businesses continue creating new jobs for our economy. Since 1999, the SBA's programs and services have time and again proven their value, helping to create or retain over 5.3 million jobs in the United States. I am confident that we can enact legislation to reauthorize the SBA before the 109th Congress ends and I am committed to work with my colleagues to pass a bipartisan bill. However, in the interim, we must ensure that the SBA can continue to offer the entire range of its programs to our nation's small businesses, which are the backbone of our economic foundation, creating nearly three-quarters of all new jobs and generating about 50 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. However, at stake today are four key SBA programs and authorities, including the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, which is scheduled to transfer to the Veterans Corporation on October 1, 2006. In a letter from SBA Administrator Steven C. Preston, dated September 27, 2006, the SBA stated that . . . if H.R. 6159 is not passed, then the Advisory Committee will terminate, and its duties will be assumed by the NVBDC [National Veterans Business Development Corporation]. We must act today to ensure that the SBA, the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, and all of SBA's programs continue to operate. The bill before us achieves that goal by extending the authorization for the SBA's program through February 2, 2007. That will provide sufficient time and opportunity for both the Senate and the House to pass a SBA Reauthorization legislation, for Congress to reconcile the differences, and for the President to sign a long-term reauthorization bill for the SBA. Too much was at stake for small businesses, and our economy as a whole, to allow SBA and critical small business programs and services to languish. We must find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we would fail to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for innovation and new technology, and our small firms that employ millions across the nation ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6159 and thereby ensure that the SBA will continue to serve small businesses and enable small businesses to obtain the financing they need, as they contribute so greatly to the revitalization of our national economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as the lead cosponsor for the Kerry-Snowe Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006. Six years into the 21st century, global warming should be on a trajectory toward solutions . . . international and domestic policies confronting climate change should already be in place. We believe that our bill will ultimately lead to decisive action to minimize the many dangers posed by global warming by calling for an 85 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050. Thankfully, Senator Kerry and I are not working in a policy vacuum as the United States is a party to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent ``dangerous anthropogenic interference'' with the climate system. The risks associated with a temperature increase above two degrees centigrade are grave, including the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, which, if it were to melt completely, would raise global average sea level by approximately 23 feet, devastating many of the world's coastal areas and population centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that temperatures will rise between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade, or 2.5 to 10.4 degrees fahrenheit, by the end of the century, under a range of expected emissions trends. The Kerry-Snowe bill will map out the way to stabilization through a cap and trade system for major sectors of our society and establish the climate reinvestment fund consisting of amounts collected from carbon auctions of allowances and civil penalties. The fund will be used for investment in clean energy research and technology. The bill also provides for a research and development program on global climate change and abrupt climate change research. We also call for a renewable portfolio standard requiring 20 percent of electricity from renewable electricity by 2020, and an updated Renewable Fuel Standard and E85 infrastructure requirements of 10 percent by 2020. The act also contains vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light-duty vehicles as well as medium and heavy-duty vehicles. Importantly, our bill includes a resolution expressing the urgent need for the administration to reengage in international climate negotiations. I do not come lightly nor lately to the climate change issue. That is why, this past year, when asked by three major independent think tanks--the Center for American Progress in the United States, 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. This led me to meetings both in Washington and London with my Cochair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers of the U.K. for the 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. Our ICCT report, ``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. Like the Kerry-Snowe legislation, the ICCT Report calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees centigrade. The taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees centigrade 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 degrees 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, will greatly increase the numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. Our ICCT 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 centigrade 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). The Kerry-Snowe bill reverses the growth of greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2010 and then progresses to more rapid reductions over time, out to 2050, meant to protect against a temperature rise above 2 degrees centigrade, which is predicted to mean that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will not exceed 450 parts per million. The bill gets the US on the right track, but at the same time avoiding any negative impact on our economy. Achieving success for our policy imperatives 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. And to their credit the most progressive U.S. companies have reduced emissions even further than required in climate bills offered in the Congress to date. 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. And 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. Mr. President, temperatures are rising to levels the earth has not experienced for more than a thousand years. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting so fast that they may completely vanish in 15 years. Alaska's average temperature has increased nearly five and a half degrees over the past 30 years and explains melting permafrost, sagging roads, and dying forests. A Peruvian glacier in the Andes Mountain, as reported by The Washington Post, is receding at a rate of 360 yards per year, up from a recession rate of just four yards per year for most of the 1960s and 70s. There is the massive decline in coral reefs critical to sea life worldwide. And in my state of Maine, softwood trees--the heart of our papermaking industry--and sugar maple trees that spur a large tourist industry are in danger of moving northward over the next 50 years, along with our annual potato crop worth approximately $110 million. We obviously do not have time in this Congress to debate the Kerry- Snowe bill, but we plan to use our bill as a marker to start the debate in the 110th Congress. The United States Congress is fully capable of enacting policies that change our climate for the better and guarantee a better quality of life for the generations to follow.