Olympia Snowe

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on September 17, 2006, this Nation lost another distinguished member of our ``greatest generation,'' Dr. Dorothy Constance Stratton. She was 107. An inspirational leader and true patriot, Dr. Stratton was born in March of 1899, attended high school in the Midwest, and graduated from Ottawa University with a bachelor of arts degree in 1933. She went on to earn a master of arts degree in psychology from the University of Chicago and a doctorate of philosophy from Columbia University. After earning her degrees, Dr. Stratton became the first full-time dean of women at Purdue University. Always committed to establishing a more positive and constructive atmosphere for women on campus, her pioneering force brought to life a vision to make science more appealing to women. With enthusiasm and energy, she developed an experimental curriculum that proved successful and increased undergraduate enrollment of women at Purdue from 600 to over 1,400. In 1942, as the dark clouds of World War II gathered over our Nation, Dr. Statton felt compelled to duty and took a leave of absence from Purdue to join the Naval Women's Reserve. Shortly after receiving her commission in the Navy as a lieutenant, President Roosevelt signed an amendment to Public Law 773, thereby establishing the Coast Guard's Women Reserve. Known for her brilliance as an organizer and administrator, a newly promoted Lieutenant Commander Stratton was sworn in as Coast Guard Women's Reserve new director, simultaneously making Dr. Statton the first women accepted for service as a commissioned officer in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard. Lieutenant Commander Stratton immediately left her mark on the newly established Reserve Service. Shortly after accepting the position of director she sent a memo to wartime Coast Guard Commandant ADM Russell R. Waesche. Dr. Stratton wrote, ``The motto of the Coast Guard is `Semper Paratus--Always Ready.' The initials of this motto are, of course, S-P-A-R. Why not call the members of the Women's Reserve SPARs?. . . . As I understand it, a spar is a supporting beam and that is what we hope each member or the Women's Reserve will be.'' And so they were. Under Stratton's inspiring leadership the newly named SPARs expanded to include nearly 1,000 officers and over 10,0000 enlisted women. These dedicated, selfless women initially replaced men working in traditional clerical and routine services at shore stations, but as the war progressed, SPARs worked as parachute riggers, pilot trainer operators, aviation machinists' mates, and air control tower operators. Known as the ``women behind the men behind the guns,'' their duties eventually extended to include the most important port security, logistical, and administrative jobs. By wars end, the SPARs successes had forever changed the role of women in the Coast Guard, and Dr. Stratton had been promoted to the rank of captain, another first for the U.S. Coast Guard. Following her time as SPAR director, Dr. Stratton became the first director of personnel at the International Monetary Fund, followed by service as executive director of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. She was also the United Nations representative of the International Federation of University Women. History is replete with events demonstrating the service and sacrifices made by American women. More than 400,000 women served during World War II. We are humbled by their love and dedication to our Nation. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in honoring and recognizing CAPT Dorothy Stratton for her service to the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard and its Reserve, and for the inspiration and legacy she created for the women of this great Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor and pay tribute to ADM John William Kime, the 19th commandant of the Coast Guard who passed away on September 14, 2006. During his distinguished 41-year career in the Coast Guard, Admiral Kime embodied the ideals of superior public service. An officer of great vision and ability, his leadership as the Commandant of the Coast Guard from 1990 to 1994 left an indelible legacy of resource stewardship, environmental protection, and increased national security. Admiral Kime graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1957. Following graduation, he immediately went to sea, serving in both deck and engineering assignments aboard the Coast Guard cutter Casco. In 1960, he assumed command of Loran Station Wake Island. After his tour of duty in the South Pacific, Admiral Kime earned masters degrees in marine engineering and naval engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and embarked on what ultimately became his lifelong professional passion: improving the safety and security of this Nation's maritime interests. Admiral Kime commanded the Marine Safety Office in Baltimore, and served as the principal U.S. negotiator at the International Maritime Organization, IMO, conference in London where he was a key contributor during drafting of the liquefied gas container ship safety codes. Also during his time in Washington, Admiral Kime oversaw the structural design of the Coast Guard's Polar Class icebreakers--two vessels that have proven to be the anvil upon which this Nation's scientific research at the Earth's poles has been forged. While commanding the Coast Guard's Eleventh District, Admiral Kime was summoned to direct the Federal response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, an event of national significance that influenced the rest of his career. Admiral Kime went on to serve as Chief of the Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Division in Washington DC and was ultimately confirmed by the 101st Congress as Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard in 1990. As Commandant, Admiral Kime oversaw implementation of the landmark Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This act streamlined and strengthened the Federal Government's ability to prevent and respond to catastrophic oil spills. For his immense successes in improving commercial shipping regulations, he was awarded the 1993 International Maritime Prize by the International Maritime Organization. From overseeing the structural design of our Polar ice breaking fleet to pioneering improvements in the way our Nation prevents and responds to oil spills in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster, Admiral Kime's influence and energy remains visible in the wonderful performance of the U.S. Coast Guard today. Mr President, I ask all Members of the Senate to join me in recognizing Admiral Kime's service in our Nation's Coast Guard and remembering both his life and his dedication to the United States of America.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to commend the University of Maine and Machias Savings Bank for underwriting the ``Back To Business'' radio program hosted by Deb Neuman for a second year. Heard on WVOM in Old Town, ME, Back To Business is an advice and news program geared specifically toward fostering the creation, development, and continued success of small businesses in Maine. It has been a strong, supportive, and unwavering voice for Maine's small businesses, providing an interactive forum that discusses pressing issues of the day, such as small business access to investment capital, regulatory, and tax compliance burdens, and the lack of affordable health insurance options in Maine. The small business owners that appear on ``Back To Business'' frequently cite Maine's business climate as challenging on several fronts. Moving forward, it is critical that we also think forward and equip America's small businesses with the knowledge and tools to confront the challenges of tomorrow so that they can create jobs and continue to strengthen our economy. I can proudly report that ``Back To Business'' offers Maine small businesses vital knowledge and useful tools and resources. We must not forget that the Federal and State governments should be partners, working together with the business community to support small businesses. Small businesses create nearly three-quarters of all net new jobs, represent 97 percent of all business in Maine, and employ 61 percent of Maine's workers. Mainers are more than ever relying upon small business ownership as an alternative to the traditional workplace where the manufacturing industry and corporate America once offered life long futures for workers. As chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have introduced an ambitious legislative agenda to break down small business barriers. I recently introduced a bill that would expand the Small Business Administration's Historically Underutilized Business Zones or HUBZones program to include rural Maine towns and regions that were previously ineligible. According to the SBA, 110 Maine businesses in 11 counties received more than $12.7 million in HUBZone Program dollars in fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, current law is preventing more regions in Maine from being certified as HUBZones. Under my bill, small businesses in rural Maine, including the Katahdin region, would be classified as HUBZones to qualify and compete for Federal contracts and subcontracts. I have also worked hard to find a solution to the small business health insurance crisis. Small businesses in Maine and across the country are trapped in stagnant, dysfunctional insurance markets with premiums that are increasing at exponential percentage levels. Last year, I requested a Government Accountability Office Report that showed a startling market consolidation. In Maine, five large insurance companies control 98 percent of the market, leaving small businesses with few affordable coverage options. This is why I have long championed legislation that would create Small Business Health Plans, which would allow small businesses to pool together nationally, to offer quality health insurance products to their employees at significantly lower costs. This year we came closer than ever before to passing SBHPs into law, and I will continue to push forward with my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, to fashion bipartisan legislation that can be signed into law to bring small businesses relief. Mr. President, I again commend WVOM's ``Back to Business'' program, which is a true public service to Mainers. Their mission to educate elected officials, opinion leaders, and the people of Maine about the importance of small businesses to our economy and our country is invaluable.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, to help start-up small businesses obtain access to capital, today I rise with my colleague Senator Kerry to introduce the Access to Capital for Entrepreneurs Act of 2006 or ACE Act. Our bill would encourage equity investments in qualified small businesses by providing so-called ``angel investors'' with a tax incentive to fund new small business enterprises. Angel investors are high-net-worth individuals who invest in and support start-up companies in the critical early stages of growth. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I meet with prospective entrepreneurs in Maine and across the country and repeatedly hear about their dreams of starting dynamic new businesses. Unfortunately, their hopes can sometimes be dashed when these entrepreneurs encounter barriers to raising the funds they need to get their ``start-up'' enterprises off the ground. For entrepreneurs and other aspiring small business owners, a self- evident truth since the founding of our country is that it takes money to make money. Our legislation makes that goal a little easier for aspiring small business owners by ensuring that our entrepreneurs have access to venture capital and credit markets so they can continue to drive America's economic growth and job creation. Since small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers and create nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, Congress must do everything within its power to help them grow and thrive. Under the Access to Capital for Entrepreneurs Act of 2006, angel investors would be eligible for a 25 percent tax credit to offset up to $500,000 of investments per year. Because the legislation limits the investment per small business to $250,000, which is the amount a typical entrepreneur requires to begin operations, an investor would have to invest in at least two companies to receive the full $500,000 tax credit. To qualify for the tax incentive, the angel investor must have an income of $200,000 over a two-year period, or net worth of $1 million. It's patterned after successful tax credits that have been enacted in 21 states, including Maine. Recent research shows that venture capitalists are now targeting their investments for larger businesses or for later in a business's development, leaving precious little seed money for new ventures. Today, venture capitalists invest an average of $7 million per deal, an amount that far exceeds the needs of a nascent small business. Moreover, in 2005, of the $21.7 billion invested by venture capitalists, just 3.3 percent was allocated to start-up small businesses. There were 227,000 angel investors who were active in 2005. Yet there are hundreds of thousands more waiting to be created. IRS statistics show that the ratio of potential to active angel investors is between 7 to 1 and 10 to 1. There is an enormous untapped market of future investors who we can call to help finance emerging small businesses in virtually every sector of the economy. Our bill would remedy this situation by encouraging more angel investors to fund more of our Nation's smallest businesses. These businesses are critical to the economy, as they generate 60 percent to 80 percent of net new jobs and contribute more than 50 percent of non- farm private-sector output. In addition, if the provisions of the ACE Act are signed into law, many small businesses that would otherwise fail for lack of adequate resources could grow and expand, creating more jobs for Americans, and further bolstering our Nation's economy. With no incentive, angel investments helped create 198,000 jobs in the United States during 2005. Imagine how many more jobs we could create if we enact the tax credit we are proposing today. I am committed to supporting our Nation's small business community by increasing its access to capital. The entrepreneurial spirit of our 25 million small businesses dates back to our Nation's founding. From family farms to software development, small businesses are the heart of our economy and the linchpin for the innovation that moves our country forward. Americans who assume the risks and responsibilities inherent in owning and operating a business deserve our praise, admiration and unwavering support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today for the Town of Rockport that would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, requested shortly after the Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2006 that Congress decommission a 35-foot by 275- foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system. It is my hope that this non-controversial provision will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2006 conference report rather than have the Town of Rockport have to wait possibly for years before another WRDA bill is considered. I urge my Senate conferees for the WRDA conference to include this language that was drafted by the New England Corps of Engineers who have no objection to the deauthorization.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today for the Town of Rockport that would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, requested shortly after the Senate passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2006 that Congress decommission a 35-foot by 275- foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system. It is my hope that this non-controversial provision will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2006 conference report rather than have the Town of Rockport have to wait possibly for years before another WRDA bill is considered. I urge my Senate conferees for the WRDA conference to include this language that was drafted by the New England Corps of Engineers who have no objection to the deauthorization.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, across my great State of Maine and throughout America, in countless ceremonies--public and private, in testaments--planned and spontaneous, and in towns of every size and stripe, we commemorate with mutual solemnity the fifth anniversary of a day born out of inconsolable and unimaginable loss as well as unconquerable spirit and ennobling service September 11, 2001. As we pause to mourn those who have passed from us and as we confront once again unspeakable acts of barbarism and horror, we cannot help but find abundant comfort, solace, inspiration, and pride in the eternal images and remembrances of heroism and sacrifice on that terrible day. Through what President Lincoln once eloquently phrased as the ``mystic chords of memory,'' we share in reverent and heart-wrenching moments of silence and find a unifying kinship with those who convene at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA. And regardless of our circumstance, location, and occupation, we cast aside our differences, agendas, and personal and individual pursuits, to place into action and live out the immortal words of our Founding Fathers that reverberate throughout the halls of Congress as well as the annals of our history: E Pluribus Unum, or ``Out of Many, One.'' Out of the ashes of destruction, we become one Nation, indivisible. At the same time, we are not immune to feeling a panoply of emotions--patriotism, pride, anger--as well as a persistent, gnawing disbelief that such calculated savagery could exist in the world and could be perpetrated so brutally and ruthlessly against innocent people. And those feelings intensify when we put faces and names with the long line of those who perished. It becomes especially personal when we reflect upon the Mainers whom we have lost. We grieved then-- and we feel a deep, inescapable sorrow now for the tragedy that befell Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline Norton, Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. Our thoughts and prayers remain--as they have for the last 5 years and as they will always--with their families and loved ones. While we forever honor their memory, we also understand that the greatest memorial is to embrace all that we have retained as a nation-- our strength, our sense of purpose, and our veneration of the principles of liberty and justice--even and especially in tumultuous times. Let us remember how that one day in September not only changed America and the world but also reminded us of what really matters--of the tenets and people we should value and what true heroes really look like. I recall those passengers who, when faced with the horrible certainty of their circumstances, brought down United Airlines flight 93 to save the lives of others--not to mention the very symbols of our democracy, the Capitol and the White House. On this poignant occasion, we celebrate those heroes who walk among us today while the legacy of those who perished on 9/11 echoes throughout New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, and every town and city in this land. And we revere the indelible and exemplary contributions of all first responders on 9/11 and those made daily throughout our Nation by firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, and Americans who are ever-capable of performing extraordinary deeds. We are also mindful of our military men and women who protect and defend our way of life. Whether on American shores and soil or around the globe, their steadfast sense of duty is an inspiration to us all. As we herald the supreme actions of the past, we must remain unrelenting in our focus on the trials and tribulations of the present and the future. The plot foiled by British authorities this past summer was a chilling reminder that underscores the lurking and merciless threat we face--and that we cannot afford to yield to the call of complacency. Just as our enemies have proved they are ever-patient, so must we prove we are ever-vigilant. We come together on days of remembrance such as 9/11 to draw strength from those who are with us and from the memories of those who are not. We recognize the remarkable and munificent valor of fallen friends, family, and fellow countrymen whose valiant example binds us to them and their noble heritage--and binds us to each other today--and into a future more illumined by their selfless deeds on our behalf. That sentiment brings to mind a great son of Maine, GEN Joshua Chamberlain, who, in 1889, said the following upon dedicating the Monument to the 20th Maine that he so nobly commanded at the Battle of Gettysburg: In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass. Bodies disappear. But spirits linger to consecrate ground for the vision-place of souls. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart-drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them . . . And lo! the shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls. It is that power of vision that we have in common that draws us together today. From that it surely follows the outpouring of respect and admiration that testifies to a solitary and solemn truth--that time will never, ever, dim the glorious deeds that were done in the face of heinous evil. The morning of September 11, 2001, began with such beautiful blue skies but ended with a nation in grief-stricken desolation and stunned shock. In Washington, DC, I watched the images along with the rest of the world. Later, as the sun set over the National Mall--still capped by smoke billowing from the wound in the side of the Pentagon--I will never forget joining with my colleagues in the House and Senate on the Capitol steps to sing ``God Bless America.'' We sang to send a message to the country and to the world that we would never be deterred--that freedom is forged by something much more resolute than any act of terror. Recalling all that September 11 represents--the tragedies and the triumphs--how it revealed the better angels of our nature for the world to see in our hour of calamitous attack, despair, and fear, we must unequivocally resolve on this day--and every day--that we will bring the fight to the enemy, will not falter in our unwavering commitment, we will persevere, and most of all, we will and must prevail.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Monday, August 7, was the eighth anniversary of the bombings of our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam of August 7, 1998. On that dreadful day, the lives of 12 Americans, 11 Tanzanians, and 212 Kenyans were tragically taken; more than 4,000 injured. The names of 56 killed U.S. Government employees-- Americans, Kenyans, and Tanzanians--are memorialized on a plaque on a wall in the State Department. I want to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those who died and to those who were injured. We continue to mourn their loss. Their memories will remain eternal. And we pray for strength for those who are still suffering. At this time, I also want to express my heartfelt sympathy for another great loss in the Foreign Service family, the matriarch of America's diplomats, Ambassador Mary Ryan. I, as well as all those who knew her, was deeply saddened to hear of Mary's passing on April 25. During my days with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mary and I worked closely together in response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings by aggressively introducing technology data systems, such as the TIPOFF lookout system, and strengthening interagency information sharing to identify potential terrorists as they applied for visas to our great Nation. In the aftermath of the August 7 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and then after 9/11, our paths crossed again, as we, together, tackled the visa and border security challenges of our day. Mary's dedication to and love for her nation was always very evident during these trying times. As the longest-serving diplomat at the time of her departure from the State Department, Mary served 36 years in her distinguished public service career. Mary entered the Foreign Service in 1966 serving in Naples, Tegucigalpa, Monterrey, Washington, Abidjan, and Khartoum before being appointed ambassador to Swaziland in 1988. In 1993, she became the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs and in 1999 she was named career ambassador, only the second woman to hold the rank in the history of the State Department. A mentor to generations in the Foreign Service, particularly women, Mary Ryan was truly an outstanding American diplomat and public servant. Mary donated much of her time to those in need, extending a uniquely kind, generous and warm spirit that will be missed by all. The Nation owes a deep debt of gratitude to these fine men and women who serve our Nation's interests overseas and their families. And I want to thank them for their public service and dedication to our fine Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill designed to reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. This bill's primary purpose is to ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees. Surety bonds are critical to small companies' survival and competitiveness. Without bonding, small firms cannot secure the contracts they need to grow. Unfortunately, many new, small businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets they need to secure surety bonding. Many sureties also refuse to bond small companies because of the greater risk that comes with insuring unproven firms. For many small businesses, difficulties obtaining surety bonds act as a barrier to entry and prevent them from competing in defense contracting, construction, services, and other markets. Insuring against loss, surety bonds are most often used on large contracts where the sequential work of many subcontractors is necessary to finish a project on time. The principal contractor will require that each subcontractor obtain a surety bond. A subcontractor's surety bond will guarantee that they will meet their contract's time and quality requirements whether it be for framing a building or installing specific computer equipment. The majority of small and large businesses fulfill their contractual obligations, and claims against surety bonds are infrequent. If a claim occurs, the surety firm is responsible for any monetary damages that occur because the bonded company did not fulfill its contractual obligations. Many new small contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. In order to reduce the risk to- surety firms, the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible claims on bonds underwritten through the Surety Bond Guarantee Program. The Surety Bond Guarantee Program then helps small businesses establish a bonding history so that with time they can outgrow the program and obtain bonds in the competitive marketplace. It is critical to understand that the number of participating sureties in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program directly affects the number of small companies that can receive surety bonds. Over the last several years, a number of SBA actions have greatly reduced the profitability of surety companies participating in this SBA program. Declining profitability has forced sureties to leave the program, causing a severe downturn in the total number of small businesses obtaining surety bonds. In 2003, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program issued 8,974 bonds to small businesses. In 2004, the number declined to 7,803 bonds, and in 2005, the number declined again to 5,678 bonds. This year, even though the need for surety bonds has not decreased, as of March 2006, only 1,760 surety bonds have been issued. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and continue participating in the program. One of the greatest obstacles to profitability is the Preferred Surety Bond Program's outdated fee structure. Currently, sureties in the preferred program are forced to use insurance rates set on August 1, 1987, almost 20 years ago. Many sureties have left the program because the SBA's outdated rates prevent them from making a profit on the small business bonds they issue. To address this problem, my bill would grant participating sureties greater rate setting flexibility by allowing them to charge rates that are approved by the insurance commissioner of the State in which the contract will be performed. It will also raise the current limit on the maximum amount of a contract that a company can bond through the program from $2 million to $3 million, an adjustment that inflation makes necessary. My bill prohibits the SBA from unwinding a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already underwritten and approved the bond. Currently, the SBA will often find technical reasons, which should have been discovered during the underwriting process, to avoid paying on a claim against an SBA guaranteed bond. When this occurs, the surety companies must honor the SBA's financial obligations and cover any losses caused by the breach of contract. Most sureties can only afford to have the SBA unwind a bond once or twice before they are forced to leave the Surety Bond Program. My bill also addresses recent SBA fee increases. In August of 2005, the SBA moved to increase surety bonding companies' premium fees by 60 percent and then directed that none of the fee increase could be passed along to small companies seeking surety bonds. I was concerned that this fee increase would provide an additional reason for surety companies to stop underwriting small companies and further decrease the ability of small firms to receive surety bonds. The SBA's fee increase made it necessary for me to evaluate the underlying terms of the surety program. After working with the SBA, eventually the agency agreed to allow the surety companies to split the fee increase with small firms, a much more palatable solution than forcing the bonding companies--or the small businesses--to absorb all of the increase. The bill requires the SBA to be transparent in its fee structure and any calculations the agency uses to justify future fee increases. The bill also clarifies that Congress does not require the Surety Bond Guarantee Program to be entirely self funding or self sufficient. I am working with the SBA to reverse the decline in participating sureties and increase the number of small businesses receiving surety bonding. To achieve this goal, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program is working to reduce approval times by increasing companies' ability to submit underwriting applications and claim requests online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety bonding. These changes, along with the necessary legislative changes I have proposed today, will help the program attract new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to secure sureties underwriting through the program. Mr. President, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support the Surety Bond Improvement Act. This bill was written after consulting with small business owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this critical program. Without these changes, the number of sureties participating in the program will continue to decline--as will the ability of small businesses to secure surety bonds. Without these bonds many small businesses will be unable to compete for contracts and government work. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a barrier to entry and competition they are unable to overcome.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Information Security Act of 2006. This bill will establish within the Small Business Administration a Small Business Information Security Task Force to advise the SBA and help small businesses both understand the information security challenges they face and identify resources to help meet those challenges. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my goals is to ensure small businesses are protected from the mounting information security threats they face every day. This legislation will create a clearinghouse of information, resources, and tools--compiled by a task force consisting of public and private sector experts in the field--that will ease the trouble, confusion, and cost often associated with enhancing information security measures within a small business. The task force will continually update information and resources as new technologies and new threats arise. Currently, potential and existing owners of small businesses turn to the SBA for resources regarding a number of other aspects when developing and maintaining their ventures. But information security resources are not as readily available. This measure will present an opportunity for the SBA to create a repository for small businesses to meet their information security needs. According to a 2005 survey by the Small Business Technology Institute, more than half of all small businesses in the United States experienced a security breach in the last year. Furthermore, the study concludes that nearly one-fifth of small businesses do not use virus- scanning for e-mail, over 60 percent do not protect their wireless networks with encryption, and two-thirds of small businesses do not have an information security plan. As these statistics illustrate, small businesses are increasingly at risk of data breaches and other forms of malicious attacks on their information technology infrastructure. The Small Business Information Security Task Force will provide resources and information to small business owners to help them overcome these obstacles and decrease the risks posed to their small businesses by cybercriminals. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees. This legislation is one in a series of proposals that, if enacted, will reduce both the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burden that unfairly saddles them as they attempt to comply with our Nation's tax laws. The proposal 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. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we begin evaluating how we can best reform the Tax Code, which increasingly keeps our small businesses trapped in a paralyzing state of regulatory limbo. As is well-known small businesses are the foundation of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent the private- sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes large and expensive requirements in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. This is a problem Congress must address because small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation. Why create distractions for them as they simply seek to comply with the law? 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. These statistics are disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--running their business and creating jobs. Let me be clear that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I am certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. What I am asking for, though, is a change to make the Tax Code fairer and simpler so that small companies can satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently. For that reason, the package of proposals that I have introduced 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. Specifically, the proposal that I am introducing today will simply conform the tax codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every 5 to 7 years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement. Mr. President, this legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment. Every Member of this body has small retail constituents in small towns who may be in buildings that they have owned for generations and are struggling to compete. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work with the President to transform such a critical investment incentive into law. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry for joining me as cosponsors to this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill designed to reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. This bill's primary purpose is to ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees. Surety bonds are critical to small companies' survival and competitiveness. Without bonding, small firms cannot secure the contracts they need to grow. Unfortunately, many new, small businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets they need to secure surety bonding. Many sureties also refuse to bond small companies because of the greater risk that comes with insuring unproven firms. For many small businesses, difficulties obtaining surety bonds act as a barrier to entry and prevent them from competing in defense contracting, construction, services, and other markets. Insuring against loss, surety bonds are most often used on large contracts where the sequential work of many subcontractors is necessary to finish a project on time. The principal contractor will require that each subcontractor obtain a surety bond. A subcontractor's surety bond will guarantee that they will meet their contract's time and quality requirements whether it be for framing a building or installing specific computer equipment. The majority of small and large businesses fulfill their contractual obligations, and claims against surety bonds are infrequent. If a claim occurs, the surety firm is responsible for any monetary damages that occur because the bonded company did not fulfill its contractual obligations. Many new small contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. In order to reduce the risk to- surety firms, the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible claims on bonds underwritten through the Surety Bond Guarantee Program. The Surety Bond Guarantee Program then helps small businesses establish a bonding history so that with time they can outgrow the program and obtain bonds in the competitive marketplace. It is critical to understand that the number of participating sureties in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program directly affects the number of small companies that can receive surety bonds. Over the last several years, a number of SBA actions have greatly reduced the profitability of surety companies participating in this SBA program. Declining profitability has forced sureties to leave the program, causing a severe downturn in the total number of small businesses obtaining surety bonds. In 2003, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program issued 8,974 bonds to small businesses. In 2004, the number declined to 7,803 bonds, and in 2005, the number declined again to 5,678 bonds. This year, even though the need for surety bonds has not decreased, as of March 2006, only 1,760 surety bonds have been issued. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and continue participating in the program. One of the greatest obstacles to profitability is the Preferred Surety Bond Program's outdated fee structure. Currently, sureties in the preferred program are forced to use insurance rates set on August 1, 1987, almost 20 years ago. Many sureties have left the program because the SBA's outdated rates prevent them from making a profit on the small business bonds they issue. To address this problem, my bill would grant participating sureties greater rate setting flexibility by allowing them to charge rates that are approved by the insurance commissioner of the State in which the contract will be performed. It will also raise the current limit on the maximum amount of a contract that a company can bond through the program from $2 million to $3 million, an adjustment that inflation makes necessary. My bill prohibits the SBA from unwinding a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already underwritten and approved the bond. Currently, the SBA will often find technical reasons, which should have been discovered during the underwriting process, to avoid paying on a claim against an SBA guaranteed bond. When this occurs, the surety companies must honor the SBA's financial obligations and cover any losses caused by the breach of contract. Most sureties can only afford to have the SBA unwind a bond once or twice before they are forced to leave the Surety Bond Program. My bill also addresses recent SBA fee increases. In August of 2005, the SBA moved to increase surety bonding companies' premium fees by 60 percent and then directed that none of the fee increase could be passed along to small companies seeking surety bonds. I was concerned that this fee increase would provide an additional reason for surety companies to stop underwriting small companies and further decrease the ability of small firms to receive surety bonds. The SBA's fee increase made it necessary for me to evaluate the underlying terms of the surety program. After working with the SBA, eventually the agency agreed to allow the surety companies to split the fee increase with small firms, a much more palatable solution than forcing the bonding companies--or the small businesses--to absorb all of the increase. The bill requires the SBA to be transparent in its fee structure and any calculations the agency uses to justify future fee increases. The bill also clarifies that Congress does not require the Surety Bond Guarantee Program to be entirely self funding or self sufficient. I am working with the SBA to reverse the decline in participating sureties and increase the number of small businesses receiving surety bonding. To achieve this goal, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program is working to reduce approval times by increasing companies' ability to submit underwriting applications and claim requests online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety bonding. These changes, along with the necessary legislative changes I have proposed today, will help the program attract new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to secure sureties underwriting through the program. Mr. President, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support the Surety Bond Improvement Act. This bill was written after consulting with small business owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this critical program. Without these changes, the number of sureties participating in the program will continue to decline--as will the ability of small businesses to secure surety bonds. Without these bonds many small businesses will be unable to compete for contracts and government work. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a barrier to entry and competition they are unable to overcome.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Information Security Act of 2006. This bill will establish within the Small Business Administration a Small Business Information Security Task Force to advise the SBA and help small businesses both understand the information security challenges they face and identify resources to help meet those challenges. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my goals is to ensure small businesses are protected from the mounting information security threats they face every day. This legislation will create a clearinghouse of information, resources, and tools--compiled by a task force consisting of public and private sector experts in the field--that will ease the trouble, confusion, and cost often associated with enhancing information security measures within a small business. The task force will continually update information and resources as new technologies and new threats arise. Currently, potential and existing owners of small businesses turn to the SBA for resources regarding a number of other aspects when developing and maintaining their ventures. But information security resources are not as readily available. This measure will present an opportunity for the SBA to create a repository for small businesses to meet their information security needs. According to a 2005 survey by the Small Business Technology Institute, more than half of all small businesses in the United States experienced a security breach in the last year. Furthermore, the study concludes that nearly one-fifth of small businesses do not use virus- scanning for e-mail, over 60 percent do not protect their wireless networks with encryption, and two-thirds of small businesses do not have an information security plan. As these statistics illustrate, small businesses are increasingly at risk of data breaches and other forms of malicious attacks on their information technology infrastructure. The Small Business Information Security Task Force will provide resources and information to small business owners to help them overcome these obstacles and decrease the risks posed to their small businesses by cybercriminals. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees. This legislation is one in a series of proposals that, if enacted, will reduce both the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burden that unfairly saddles them as they attempt to comply with our Nation's tax laws. The proposal 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. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we begin evaluating how we can best reform the Tax Code, which increasingly keeps our small businesses trapped in a paralyzing state of regulatory limbo. As is well-known small businesses are the foundation of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent the private- sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes large and expensive requirements in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. This is a problem Congress must address because small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation. Why create distractions for them as they simply seek to comply with the law? 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. These statistics are disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--running their business and creating jobs. Let me be clear that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I am certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. What I am asking for, though, is a change to make the Tax Code fairer and simpler so that small companies can satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently. For that reason, the package of proposals that I have introduced 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. Specifically, the proposal that I am introducing today will simply conform the tax codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every 5 to 7 years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement. Mr. President, this legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment. Every Member of this body has small retail constituents in small towns who may be in buildings that they have owned for generations and are struggling to compete. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work with the President to transform such a critical investment incentive into law. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry for joining me as cosponsors to this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce a bill, The Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, that was reported by the committee on a vote of 18 to 0. I strongly believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout Maine and the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to expand the reach of Small Business Administration programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses. Today is a pivotal time for the SBA. A new Administrator, Steven C. Preston, has been sworn in, and I have held hearings on the reauthorization of the agency's programs that are set to expire September 30, 2006. The reauthorization and funding of SBA programs is vital to the continued growth of the economy and the small business community. My goal is for the process to conclude with a renewed SBA that is completely dedicated to fostering small business ownership and job creation in America. The SBA's fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out this congressional mandate include a wide array of financial, procurement, management, and technical assistance programs tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. As the economy continues to grow, it is essential that Congress affirms long- term stability in the programs the SBA provides to the small business community. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant SBA because small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, create nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employ 51 percent of the private- sector workforce. There is no doubt that SBA's technical assistance programs have demonstrated impressive growth. During fiscal year 2005, the SBA provided 56,739 small businesses with technical assistance. That was an astounding 46.4 percent increase from the 38,754 small businesses assisted in fiscal year 2004. If there is truth in numbers, the SBA has numerous ``truths'' it can and should tout. Its record of achievement for fiscal year 2005 alone includes: Counseling 1.5 million entrepreneurs through the agency's Small Business Development Centers, Business Information Centers, SCORE and Women's Business Centers; approving over 89,000 business loans through the 7(a) and 504 lending programs; funding 74,307 7(a) program loans to small businesses for a total of more than $l4 billion; and a doubling of small business lending since 2001, with nearly a third of SBA-backed loans being made to minority-owned small businesses. Despite a drastically declining share of the Federal budget, the data clearly indicate that the SBA's programs have created or retained a significant number of jobs over the last several years. Between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2004, the SBA's Offices of Advocacy and Legislative Affairs report that the SBA's lending and technical assistance programs enabled participating small businesses to create or retain 4.4 million new jobs. In addition, the SBA's programs have helped to create or retain more jobs during each passing year. In fiscal year 2004, the SBA's programs created or retained 51.2 percent more jobs than they did in fiscal 1999. Our goal is to build on these tremendous successes. The building blocks for a successful reauthorization are a bipartisan bill: The Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act. It is cosponsored by Ranking Member Kerry, Senator Vitter, Senator Landrieu, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lieberman and Senator Isakson. This legislation will: Reform the SBA's largest small business financing program, the section 7(a) loan program, which provided almost $15 billion in loans to small businesses last year, by increasing the maximum size of a loan from $2 million to $3 million. Require the SBA to implement a more efficient test for loan eligibility that measures businesses' revenues, rather than merely their number of employees. Establish a national preferred lender program to increase small businesses' access to capital by reducing duplicative administrative burdens on small business loans. Restructure the Small Business Investment Company Program, an innovative public-private venture capital partnership that has provided more than $25 billion in financing to small businesses. Expand the SBA's capability to assist disaster victims by allowing private lenders to make loans at lower interest rates. Increase Federal authority to prosecute, suspend, and debar large corporations which obtain government contracts by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. Create a stronger system of SBA size standards to ensure that Federal agencies respect SBA decisions on whether a company that receives a government contract is truly a small business. Address the small business health insurance crisis by creating a competitive pilot grant program for Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide counseling and resources to small businesses about health insurance options in their geographic areas. The legislation also rejects new loan fees. I strongly oppose SBA's proposal to increase fees for these programs. The fees would be charged against every loan that is greater than $1 million. In the 7(a) program, this is 3 percent of loans; in the 504 program, it is 15 percent of loans; and in the SBIC program it's 100 percent of the loans. A fee increase is not the way to balance the budget and it remains wholly unacceptable, to put it mildly. Increasing fees charged to small businesses end up hurting--not helping our Nation's small businesses. When we consider that the SBA's budget represents less than 3/100ths of a percent of the total Federal budget, is this really the place for the administration to find additional savings? Congress must always strive to ensure that all small businesses are able to access SBA's financing programs without additional penalties. In 2005, SBA programs disbursed recordbreaking totals of loans to small businesses, both in the number of loans and total dollar value provided to small businesses. During the last fiscal year, the SBA guaranteed over $24 billion in loans and venture capital for small businesses, the highest level of capital ever provided. This included over $1 million in 90 loans to Mainers through the Microloan program, which is an inexpensive program the Bush administration has targeted for elimination. The SBA's programs demonstrate how Congress can play a positive role in enhancing private-sector financing for start-up companies. Since 1953, nearly 20 million small business owners have received direct or indirect help from one of the SBA's lending or technical assistance programs, making the agency one of the government's most cost-effective instruments for economic development. SBA loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. This bill will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. This committee is here to help improve the SBA in any way possible to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs. Of course, the agency has been subjected to criticism, including my own. We can move beyond criticism and find solutions to the problems that have plagued the SBA and transform it into an agency that is led with the same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. The Small Business Reauthorization And Improvements Act will help us achieve that goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce a bill, The Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, that was reported by the committee on a vote of 18 to 0. I strongly believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout Maine and the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to expand the reach of Small Business Administration programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses. Today is a pivotal time for the SBA. A new Administrator, Steven C. Preston, has been sworn in, and I have held hearings on the reauthorization of the agency's programs that are set to expire September 30, 2006. The reauthorization and funding of SBA programs is vital to the continued growth of the economy and the small business community. My goal is for the process to conclude with a renewed SBA that is completely dedicated to fostering small business ownership and job creation in America. The SBA's fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out this congressional mandate include a wide array of financial, procurement, management, and technical assistance programs tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. As the economy continues to grow, it is essential that Congress affirms long- term stability in the programs the SBA provides to the small business community. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant SBA because small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, create nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employ 51 percent of the private- sector workforce. There is no doubt that SBA's technical assistance programs have demonstrated impressive growth. During fiscal year 2005, the SBA provided 56,739 small businesses with technical assistance. That was an astounding 46.4 percent increase from the 38,754 small businesses assisted in fiscal year 2004. If there is truth in numbers, the SBA has numerous ``truths'' it can and should tout. Its record of achievement for fiscal year 2005 alone includes: Counseling 1.5 million entrepreneurs through the agency's Small Business Development Centers, Business Information Centers, SCORE and Women's Business Centers; approving over 89,000 business loans through the 7(a) and 504 lending programs; funding 74,307 7(a) program loans to small businesses for a total of more than $l4 billion; and a doubling of small business lending since 2001, with nearly a third of SBA-backed loans being made to minority-owned small businesses. Despite a drastically declining share of the Federal budget, the data clearly indicate that the SBA's programs have created or retained a significant number of jobs over the last several years. Between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2004, the SBA's Offices of Advocacy and Legislative Affairs report that the SBA's lending and technical assistance programs enabled participating small businesses to create or retain 4.4 million new jobs. In addition, the SBA's programs have helped to create or retain more jobs during each passing year. In fiscal year 2004, the SBA's programs created or retained 51.2 percent more jobs than they did in fiscal 1999. Our goal is to build on these tremendous successes. The building blocks for a successful reauthorization are a bipartisan bill: The Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act. It is cosponsored by Ranking Member Kerry, Senator Vitter, Senator Landrieu, Senator Cantwell, Senator Lieberman and Senator Isakson. This legislation will: Reform the SBA's largest small business financing program, the section 7(a) loan program, which provided almost $15 billion in loans to small businesses last year, by increasing the maximum size of a loan from $2 million to $3 million. Require the SBA to implement a more efficient test for loan eligibility that measures businesses' revenues, rather than merely their number of employees. Establish a national preferred lender program to increase small businesses' access to capital by reducing duplicative administrative burdens on small business loans. Restructure the Small Business Investment Company Program, an innovative public-private venture capital partnership that has provided more than $25 billion in financing to small businesses. Expand the SBA's capability to assist disaster victims by allowing private lenders to make loans at lower interest rates. Increase Federal authority to prosecute, suspend, and debar large corporations which obtain government contracts by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. Create a stronger system of SBA size standards to ensure that Federal agencies respect SBA decisions on whether a company that receives a government contract is truly a small business. Address the small business health insurance crisis by creating a competitive pilot grant program for Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, to provide counseling and resources to small businesses about health insurance options in their geographic areas. The legislation also rejects new loan fees. I strongly oppose SBA's proposal to increase fees for these programs. The fees would be charged against every loan that is greater than $1 million. In the 7(a) program, this is 3 percent of loans; in the 504 program, it is 15 percent of loans; and in the SBIC program it's 100 percent of the loans. A fee increase is not the way to balance the budget and it remains wholly unacceptable, to put it mildly. Increasing fees charged to small businesses end up hurting--not helping our Nation's small businesses. When we consider that the SBA's budget represents less than 3/100ths of a percent of the total Federal budget, is this really the place for the administration to find additional savings? Congress must always strive to ensure that all small businesses are able to access SBA's financing programs without additional penalties. In 2005, SBA programs disbursed recordbreaking totals of loans to small businesses, both in the number of loans and total dollar value provided to small businesses. During the last fiscal year, the SBA guaranteed over $24 billion in loans and venture capital for small businesses, the highest level of capital ever provided. This included over $1 million in 90 loans to Mainers through the Microloan program, which is an inexpensive program the Bush administration has targeted for elimination. The SBA's programs demonstrate how Congress can play a positive role in enhancing private-sector financing for start-up companies. Since 1953, nearly 20 million small business owners have received direct or indirect help from one of the SBA's lending or technical assistance programs, making the agency one of the government's most cost-effective instruments for economic development. SBA loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. This bill will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. This committee is here to help improve the SBA in any way possible to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs. Of course, the agency has been subjected to criticism, including my own. We can move beyond criticism and find solutions to the problems that have plagued the SBA and transform it into an agency that is led with the same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. The Small Business Reauthorization And Improvements Act will help us achieve that goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the introduction of the Health Centers Renewal Act. Today health centers are a critical part of our health care safety net, serving over 15 million Americans. Community Health Centers, also known as federally qualified health centers, are the only source of primary and preventive services for many medically underserved. This is especially true for people living in rural areas, where provider shortages couple with high health care delivery costs to make access difficult for many individuals. The increasing role of health centers truly represents a bipartisan success story. Since 2001, the Congress has provided increased funding for health centers to improve and upgrade existing facilities, as well as to further expand the safety net these centers provide. That has supported the President's goal to provide 1,200 new or expanded centers, and is why today an additional four million Americans are now served by health centers. In my State of Maine, over 80,000 individuals are served by federally funded health centers. In fact, one in five uninsured, low-income Mainers relies on a health center for their primary care. In rural areas, 1 in 10 of our residents rely on a community health center for care. Today's health centers look very different from those of the past. They are providing comprehensive primary care, and have been moving forward to adopt new technology and practice models which will ensure care of the highest quality at modest cost. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has recognized the health centers as one of the top 10 performing programs in the Federal Government. Community involvement has been key to this success. The requirement that patients and community play a major role in governance has been key to the success of these providers in addressing critical local health needs. There is much yet that must be done to improve our health care safety net, including reducing the disparities in care and outcomes which plague minority and poor populations. Health centers will play a vital role in meeting those challenges, and that is why I am pleased to support this vital legislation to enable their continued growth and support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the introduction of the Health Centers Renewal Act. Today health centers are a critical part of our health care safety net, serving over 15 million Americans. Community Health Centers, also known as federally qualified health centers, are the only source of primary and preventive services for many medically underserved. This is especially true for people living in rural areas, where provider shortages couple with high health care delivery costs to make access difficult for many individuals. The increasing role of health centers truly represents a bipartisan success story. Since 2001, the Congress has provided increased funding for health centers to improve and upgrade existing facilities, as well as to further expand the safety net these centers provide. That has supported the President's goal to provide 1,200 new or expanded centers, and is why today an additional four million Americans are now served by health centers. In my State of Maine, over 80,000 individuals are served by federally funded health centers. In fact, one in five uninsured, low-income Mainers relies on a health center for their primary care. In rural areas, 1 in 10 of our residents rely on a community health center for care. Today's health centers look very different from those of the past. They are providing comprehensive primary care, and have been moving forward to adopt new technology and practice models which will ensure care of the highest quality at modest cost. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has recognized the health centers as one of the top 10 performing programs in the Federal Government. Community involvement has been key to this success. The requirement that patients and community play a major role in governance has been key to the success of these providers in addressing critical local health needs. There is much yet that must be done to improve our health care safety net, including reducing the disparities in care and outcomes which plague minority and poor populations. Health centers will play a vital role in meeting those challenges, and that is why I am pleased to support this vital legislation to enable their continued growth and support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, while the Senate was voting for cloture on S. 3711, a bill that could ultimately lead to exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Maine lobster industry gathered on a picturesque fishing pier in Maine to launch the ``Certified Maine Lobster'' initiative that could bring an added value to the State's $300 million lobster industry. My State accounts for 80 percent of lobster landings and is known for its lobster boats, lobster shacks, lobster buoys and lobster dinners along its scenic coastline. As a matter of fact, the Maine Lobstermen Association was formed to fight OCS drilling off the coast of Maine. It is because of its very pristine value that fisheries and tourism are important economic engines for the State and I cannot stand by and let these natural resources be compromised through exploration and drilling. Last year, Maine lobstermen hauled in more than 60 million pounds for a boat price of $296 million. While supporters of, S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, say that this bill is only about the Gulf of Mexico, while at the same time stating that the bill is the first step toward opening up more areas to production. One supporter was even quoted as saying, ``The goal is to maximize over time the coastal production of America from a venue of stagnation.'' This does not sound like the bill pertains only to the Gulf of Mexico, as its supporters have stated and this has rightfully alarmed the people of my State, many who make their living directly or indirectly from the sea. Scientists, economists, and fishermen have worked for 20 to 30 years to restore the magnificent fish runs off the New England coast. To them, lifting the moratorium and allowing oil and gas drilling on the 185-mile-long broad, shallow and productive fishing ground of Georges Bank that stretches from Nova Scotia to Cape Cod is unconscionable. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard, the prospect of drilling in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank and risking New England's fisheries is unacceptable to me as well. I, along with Senator Menendez, wanted to offer a simple amendment to ensure that drilling within 200 miles of the coast of Maine and other coastal States would continue to be prohibited until 2022--the same protection as is given the State of Florida in this bill. However, without following the usual amendment process, there can be no assurances that Maine's coast will be protected when this legislation is approved by a conference or that the Joint Ocean Commission's recommendation to convert current OCS revenues for ocean fisheries research will occur, and without those assurances, I have not supported moving forward. I am extremely disappointed that the decision was made to prevent amendments during debate that ignores the need to address conservation. We were told it would take a week to get through amendments that would have been offered. Well, this bill was brought up 1 week ago, and, instead of having true and fair debates on conservation amendments this past week and up or down votes, we have spent it on moving to cloture and getting to final passage. I believe that considering the leasing of additional OCS waters for oil and gas drilling should only be done with utmost caution and deliberation, and at the same time, I believe that our national energy policy should seriously focus resources on the development of renewable energy and an expansion of energy efficiencies as part of a national energy policy. I have filed an amendment to this bill that is also my stand alone bill, S. 3628, the EXTEND Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2006, that would extend the EPAct 2005 energy efficiency tax incentives until 2010--they currently expire at the end of next year having been shortened by the House in conference. Experts have calculated that, if fully implemented, the EXTEND Act will, by 2010, save 7 trillion cubic feet, Tcf, of natural gas while the Gulf of Mexico drilling bill before us would extract 5.8 Tcf by 2010. We simply cannot continue to drill ourselves out of this problem, and threaten our natural resources--we can do it with bold ideas that save much more than we can get from drilling. A reliance on only fossil fuels retards progress in developing a sustainable and comprehensive 21st century energy policy. Furthermore, the recent fluctuation of the world oil and natural gas markets indicates that this commodity is not a reliable long-term energy source. There are uncertainties involved with fossil fuels that threatens the energy security of the United States and it is important that our nation recognize the situation and develop a diverse, sustainable and progressive energy plan through a market basket of fossil fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiencies. Senator Feinstein and I were not allowed to offer our 10 in 10 bill as an amendment to this bill to require U.S. automakers to increase their average CAFE standards by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years. The bill would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2025, the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf; and 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, the equivalent of taking 90 million cars--or 75 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year. Again, we can save rather than drill. Exxon Mobil, the world's largest traded oil company, just reported a 36 percent gain in 2nd earnings. Exxon has prospered because of the high gasoline prices bolstered by the demand for supply. Increasing CAFE standards will decrease demand, lower prices and begin to put some of this money in the pockets of consumers rather than the large oil companies, who have increased output and taken advantage of the increase in oil prices, which remain over $70 a barrel. The small increase from the latest NHTSA rule for CAFE standards for SUVs does little to save gasoline and only gives lipservice to an issue that deserves more serious consideration. Even a modest increase of only five miles per gallon in the fuel efficiency of our domestic automotive fleet would save approximately 23 billion gallons of gasoline each year and reduce oil imports by 14 percent. This percentage is more than the 11 percent Venezuela provides for U.S. oil imports. The GAO reports that the U.S. is inadequately prepared to face the possibility of President Hugo Chavez' threat to cut off its oil imports to the U.S. The GAO reports that this disruption would cause an increase of $11 per barrel. So we are allowing Chavez to put us over a diplomatic oil barrel, so to speak. Why are we taking this risk with the trust of the American people and the economy when there are options that can be put in place to make us independent of Venezuela's oil--and political maneuvering? Currently, the combined fleet average for all automobiles, SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars, is approximately 25 miles per gallon-- that is down from the peak of 26.2 miles per gallon in 1987. The Feinstein-Snowe-Inouye-Chafee 10 in 10 bill would increase that combined fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by Model Year 2017--or ten mpgs 10 years from today. Also, according to the 2002 National Academy of Sciences Report on CAFE, adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. The NAS concluded that automakers can meet higher CAFE standards with existing technologies. We have the technologies today to increase our fuel economy standards. We have hybrids, more efficient engine technology, improved transmission technology, and composite materials that reduce the weight of the vehicle will all increase fuel economy standards without sacrificing safety. I fear that the Senate conferees will come back from a conference with many of the provisions in the House bill, the Deep Ocean Resources Act, H.R 4761, a bill that replaces the moratorium that currently protects most of the nation's coastline from oil and natural gas drilling and develops a leasing system that would provide the option for states to allow drilling within 50 miles of their coastlines and allow drilling throughout the OCS beyond 100 miles. Currently, the moratorium protects the coastal area up to 200 miles out. In passing this OCS drilling only bill today, the Senate has created lost opportunities that could have addressed how much we could save-- along with how much we can drill. This is what the consumers want to hear--that we are addressing every avenue possible to keep money in their pockets the next time they go to the gas pump or pay their electricity bill or purchase heating oil for the coming winter. The Senate has let the consumers down once again. And, the bill does nothing to protect Maine's tourist and fishing economies and its 3,500 miles of coastline.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate all of the Senator's leadership on this issue, but would the Senator agree it is so important for our colleagues to recognize the savings that would be realized for our American consumers? Their counterparts in other countries pay 35 to 55 percent less, so this is an enormous savings both in terms of the U.S. Government and the $50 billion the Senator has mentioned, but also more than $6 billion in direct savings to the Federal Government and to the U.S. budget. Not only do we save $50 billion, with $6.1 billion of that in savings to the U.S. budget according to the CBO, but we begin to address the fact that the American consumers are paying $87 billion more than counterparts in other countries. This is an enormous savings in all respects. Would the Senator not agree this also would advance those savings to American consumers but, as well, to our Government?

Ms. SNOWE. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan. I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, to address the amendment before the Senate based on legislation that Senator Dorgan and I introduced regarding drug importation. First and foremost, I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, for his relentless and dedicated leadership on this very important question which we hopefully can address once and for all here in the Senate and in the overall Congress because it certainly is an issue that deserves consideration. But more importantly, it deserves to become law because it is so important to the interests of the American people. We have been joined on this legislation by a broad coalition of 30 of our colleagues and many of the leaders of the importation effort, along with Senators Grassley, Kennedy, McCain, and Stabenow unified with us in advancing this bipartisan legislation. Our voice has echoed those 7 out of 10 Americans who have called for the lifting of the ban on prescription drug importation. We have worked together to see that this legislation is considered in the Senate, and we have had 10 related hearings on this very matter in the Senate since 2004. When we recently considered the Homeland Security appropriations bill, over two-thirds of the Senate responded to the increase in seizures of medications from Canadian pharmacies earlier this year by voting to stop impeding safe access to affordable medications. Today, we must do more to respond to this issue. We must pass the legislation we have introduced which will ensure Americans have a safe and effective system to provide access to affordable medications. Our constituents are suffering as the cost of health care is rising rapidly in America, and prescription drug costs have led to that increase. In response to a request of Senator Wyden and myself to track the price of medications most used by seniors, the GAO has repeatedly reported that the cost of these medications has increased at two to three times the rate of inflation as indicated by this chart. In fact, AARP reported recently that the fact is this the highest third-quarter increase in the cost of brand drugs since they began these studies. We can see here two to three times the rate of inflation in the cost of medications. As a nation, we are growing older, and as we do we use more prescription drugs. At the same time, relentless price increases have made access to lifesaving drugs more and more unaffordable for Americans. The problem of affordability is shared by everyone. If you have prescription drug coverage, rapid price increases drive up your premiums. If you are one of the millions without drug coverage, the situation is far worse. You bear the full cost of the world's highest prices for medications. Today, even with the new Medicare prescription drug benefit in place, over 46 million Americans are saddled with the burden of exorbitantly priced medications. A drug can be safe and effective, but what good is it if you can't afford to take it? That is why we simply cannot afford to postpone action any longer on this legislation. We have acted before repeatedly in the Senate and in the overall Congress. It has been law since 2000, when Congress last acted to allow importation. We have also required certification by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the HHS Secretary must certify the safety of importation. Unfortunately, that has been the caveat and a disguise for blocking the importation measure. It has denied access to importation. The Department of Health and Human Services has not taken steps to ensure that we can allow Americans to import drugs safely from other countries--and in particular Canada. While the FDA was unable to point to any single individual harmed by Canadian drugs, they have actually denied importation from Canada. In Europe, in over 30 years of parallel trading of pharmaceuticals, no death or injury has ever been documented because they know it is safe. While our constituents have found importation offers them access to lifesaving drugs, we have repeatedly heard from FDA how the practice threatens health. Opponents claim importation will cause harm, but they fail to note that the greatest prescription drug threat to the safety of Americans--that is, the inability to take drugs that are prescribed--exacts a toll of thousands of American lives every year. As Dr. Peter Rost--a former Pfizer executive up until a few months ago-- who joined Senator Dorgan and I and others in a press conference, observed, ``Holding up a vote on reimportation, stopping good reimportation bills has a high cost, not just in money but in American lives.'' He is a former executive of Pfizer who actually had the courage to make that statement. Today, thanks to the intensive reporting of health professionals, we are seeing more evidence of the cost of unaffordable medications. In my own State of Maine, one of our physicians reported hospitalizing two patients in a single month--one of them in the intensive care unit with a dangerous heart arrhythmia simply because they could not afford to refill a prescription. But Americans recognize the value of prescription drugs, and they have turned to affordable sources of these medications so they can preserve and protect their health. Many of my Maine constituents have used Canadian pharmacies and found both savings and safety. But dangers do exist. There are certainly those who would exploit consumers with dangerous or counterfeit medications. It is imperative that we work proactively to ensure that the importation of prescription drugs is safe. That is why Senator Dorgan and I, along with our colleagues, have comprehensively addressed the various concerns that have been raised over the months and years about drug importation--so that we can get something done. But certifying safety isn't the answer; any measure should actually make it safe. And there are two key issues we must address as we consider importation legislation. First and foremost, is it safe? Second, will the legislation be effective in delivering real savings for consumers? Our legislation which is incorporated in the amendment before us today does both. Our constituents have taken action to purchase the drugs they could afford--mostly in Canada--and have demonstrated that importation can be safe. In Europe, with over 30 years of parallel trading of pharmaceuticals, no death or injury has ever been documented. They know it is safe. Dr. Rost, as I said, who was a Pfizer executive up until several months ago, stated from his own firsthand experience in Europe--and I quote: I think it is outright derogatory to claim that Americans would not be able to handle reimportation of drugs when the rest of the educated world can do this. And I agree. Under our legislation, Americans will receive imported drugs from 30 countries. In most cases, Americans will purchase imported prescription drugs from their local pharmacy. The pharmacist will receive those drugs from a U.S. wholesaler which imports them. These wholesalers will be registered, inspected, and monitored by the FDA. This higher level of safety is also a first step in establishing a higher standard for the handling of all medications in the United States. Our legislation also allows individuals to directly order medications from outside the United States when using an FDA registered and approved Canadian pharmacy. Again, just as with wholesalers handling prescription drugs, the FDA will examine, register, and inspect these facilities on a frequent basis. The FDA will assure the highest standards for such essential functions as recording medical history, verifying prescriptions, and tracking shipments. But regardless of whether one purchases imported drugs from the local pharmacist or uses a Canadian pharmacy, we assure that a legitimate prescription and a qualified pharmacist will be vital ingredients in ensuring safety. Toward that end, we have also worked with Senator Feinstein to incorporate provisions of the Ryan Haight Act to assure that as we provide safety in an importation system we do not ignore the need to assure safety and integrity in domestic internet pharmacies. These provisions will assure that properly licensed pharmacies and pharmacists are behind Web sites offering prescription drugs and that we no longer see prescriptions issued based on a submitted form or a telephone conversation. There must be integrity and a proper professional relationship between medical professionals and patients. For those who say the consumers could unwittingly purchase an unapproved or suspect drug, our legislation assures that the drug received will always be FDA approved. If any difference exists in a foreign drug, even the most minute, our legislation assures FDA will evaluate the product and determine its acceptability. We provide a process to assure imported drugs are the same FDA- approved product, and if a minor difference exists, such as a coloring or inactive ingredient is different, and has no effect on the efficacy of the drug, our legislation assures that it will be tested and labeled so that differences are known. So there will not be motivation for a manufacturer to game the system by making a minor change in order to make a product unapproved and thus unimportable. For those who say that counterfeiting is a threat, our legislation requires the use of anticounterfeiting technologies to protect drugs. The fact is, we can employ technologies like the one now used on the new $20 bill. We can do the same with prescription drugs. Moreover, this bill supports the development of future anticounterfeiting and track-and-trace technologies which we hope will be used to protect all prescription drugs. For those who say consumers won't know who has handled an imported prescription drug, our bill requires that a chain of custody--a ``pedigree''--be maintained and inspected to help ensure the integrity of the imported prescription drugs. A pedigree for medications was mandated by law, believe it or not, back in 1988--that is correct, in 1988--and we still await its implementation by the FDA. Almost 20 years later, the FDA has yet to implement that requirement to establish a pedigree for medications to ensure that we have a chain of custody so we understand how they have been handled from the initial process of manufacturing. Some even attempt to alarm Americans about the countries from which we import drugs, citing Latvia, Estonia, and Slovakia, members of the European Union. Another member is Ireland, where Lipitor is made. I call your attention to this chart on which the European Union and other countries from which we would import is in blue. These countries meet or exceed our standards. In contrast, we have in red many additional countries in which the FDA inspects pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. These include China, India, Bulgaria, Jordan, and others with lower standards. For those who say importation isn't safe, we show that it will be, and this legislation sets a model of improving safety in the handling of all prescription drugs. The safety has been attested to by none other than the former FDA Commissioner, Dr. David Kessler. He said our legislation `` . . . provides a sound framework for assuring that imported drugs are safe and effective. Most notably, it provides additional resources to the agency to run such a program, oversight by FDA of the chain of custody of imported drugs back to FDA-inspected plants, a mechanism to review imported drugs to ensure that they met FDA's approval standards, and the registration and oversight of importers and exporters to assure that imported drugs meet those standards and are not counterfeit. Some say the consumers will not see significant savings, but drugs imported under this program will be labeled as imports, and consumers will be able to compare the side-by- side savings. With increasing consumer awareness of foreign prices and competition between importing wholesalers, we are confident of consumer savings. Let me say in conclusion, I hope the Senate will give due consideration to this legislation. In the final analysis, it incorporates every issue regarding safety concerns, every measure, every standard that could be put in place to ensure we can have safe drug importation and accomplish the ultimate goal, ensuring affordable medications to the American people. They deserve it.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes under the previous time agreement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my responsibility and the duty of this Chamber to help small businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs annually. On Monday I introduced legislation that would help to address the retirement needs of millions of small business employees. My bill will make it easier for small employers to offer pension and 401(k) benefits to their employees, who typically have lower retirement savings rates. My bill makes it easier for small businesses to offer a ``DB/K plan'' which is a combination of a defined benefit plan and a section 401(k) plan that is included in a single plan document. Currently, due to defined benefit plans' complex rules and high establishment costs, many small businesses are unable to set up these types of pension plans for their employees. Instead, many small businesses choose to offer less complex 401(k) plans that do not require employer contributions and offer their employees less guaranteed retirement benefits. Many small employers would like to offer defined benefit pension plans but are currently hampered by top-heavy rules designed to prevent large companies from exclusively offering pensions to key employees. These well-meaning regulations prevent most small companies, with a few key employees, from providing pension benefits. Legislation that establishes DB/K plans would provide small businesses with reasonable exemptions from these top-heavy rules. This increased flexibility will enable employers to offer employees pension benefits as well as the capability to save incrementally in 401(k) type accounts. Another advantage of DB/K plans is that they offer employees increased flexibility. Employees with DB/K plans would be allowed to take their DB/K assets with them when they switch employers. This portability would make DB/Ks attractive to many younger employees, who tend to change jobs often. Portability is a DB/K innovation not offered by traditional defined benefit plans which have vesting periods and stop accumulating value when the employee leaves a company. For older workers, the main attraction would be the defined benefit feature, which provides that at least part of their retirement savings would provide a monthly pension check at retirement. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, only 16 percent of employees at companies with 10 workers or fewer and 32 percent of employees at companies with 100 employees or fewer participate in their company-sponsored retirement savings plans. Comparatively, almost 60 percent of employees at companies with more than 1,000 workers save for retirement through a company sponsored plan. Small business workers' low participation rates in retirement savings plan are troubling as small businesses employ half of all private sector employees. Many policymakers who are closely watching the aging of the American population worry that small business owners' and their employees' low savings rates will leave this group inadequately prepared to pay for their retirements. The creation of DB/ K plans is one option for helping small business owners and their employees increase their overall retirement savings. Under this legislation each part of the DB/K plan would be subject to the present-law rules for defined benefit plans or 401(k) plans, but the rules would be simplified. Like 401(k) plans, the proposed DB/Ks would allow employees to make pretax contributions to their accounts, could include employer matching funds and permit employees to invest their 401(k) portion in mutual funds etc. The assets of both components of the DB/K plan could be held in a trust covered by a single trust instrument. However, the assets of the defined benefit component of the plan and the assets of the 401(k) component of the plan must be clearly identified and allocated to the appropriate part of the trust.