Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. The Chair would like to inform the Members of the Committee that the Committee will hold a markup on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 10 a.m., in Russell 428A on ``The Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, with whom I have worked for many years to achieve affordable prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We have certainly come a long way from back where we were nearly 10 years ago. Yet much remains to be done. As we have seen, the implementation of the Medicare Part D benefit has been difficult, and there is no doubt we are still on the road to a sustainable benefit which our seniors can easily navigate. The complexity of the benefit is certainly posing a hazard to many of our seniors. Today we face a crisis as millions of seniors are entering a gap in their prescription drug coverage--the so-called doughnut hole. In fact, when a senior's drug costs exceed $2,250 this year, they will no longer receive benefits until their spending reaches $5,100. That leaves seniors with a full $2,850 of drug costs to absorb before they receive a single cent of coverage. And they must continue to pay premiums. The Kaiser Foundation has reported that an estimated 7 million seniors will be affected by this coverage gap. How will they continue to receive essential medications? Earlier this year, I offered legislation which would have addressed this issue by allowing every beneficiary to change their plan once this year so that those beneficiaries who realized that they require a more comprehensive plan could choose to change to an appropriate plan. We know that selecting drug coverage was a challenging process for seniors, all the more so as the deadline loomed and they struggled to get assistance. Many may have made a good decision, but their circumstances may have since changed significantly. How many of us know of a senior who has had a major illness or hospitalization just since January? Most seniors in that situation will have changes in their medications as a result and often will use more prescription drugs and likely more expensive ones as well. Finally, with coverage available, there is little doubt that physicians were encouraged to prescribe medications that at last their patients could afford--drugs which could prevent serious illness, such as heart disease. Yet now, just as seniors see the possibility of a future with better health, the cost of that critical treatment may be unsustainable. So millions are facing the dilemma we have seen before-- cutting doses or even discontinuing medications. This must not occur again. As many medical experts will tell you, to stop taking essential medications or to begin rationing their use will pose serious safety risks to many of our beneficiaries. That undermines the benefits we should see from Part D--improved health and decreased health expenditures. So Senator Wyden and I are here to offer a solution--one which, I might add, both HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have previously suggested they would pursue. That solution is a simple one--to allow those facing a coverage gap to change to a plan which would offer continuous coverage. That solution has simply not been employed and that compels us to act today, to protect our seniors. The bill I rise to introduce today--the Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act--truly gives a second chance to those who most need this coverage. Under this legislation we require that CMS notify those who are approaching the coverage gap and give them an option of making a one-time plan change in order to obtain essential drug coverage. Under our legislation, beneficiaries could change to any plan which would provide continuous coverage. That includes drug plans which provide generic or brand-name drugs as well as Medicare Advantage plans offering comprehensive drug coverage. In a few States, there is simply not an option which allows a beneficiary to obtain continuous brand-name drug coverage. I note that in my State of Maine, as well as in New Hampshire and Alaska, such coverage simply cannot be obtained. So this legislation directs the Secretary to provide an option for beneficiary enrollment in a plan with brand-name drug coverage outside their region. That is simply fair, and it is essential to ensure that we don't see the doughnut hole threaten the health of our seniors. We know that this coverage gap is an issue we simply must address. Seniors need to be able to plan and budget and count on a predictable monthly cost for their essentials of life. When the Congress adopted Part D 3 years ago, we said we never wanted to make seniors again choose between buying food and buying essential medicines. Yet without addressing the doughnut hole now, we will put seniors in that exact position again. So this legislation also asks the GAO to undertake a study of options for eliminating the doughnut hole--looking at ways to level the benefit structure--including how we might do so without increasing federal expenditures. I note that one might be able to accomplish this, without changing the beneficiary's copayment rates appreciably. Obviously, if we saw some improvement in the pricing of drugs, that certainly would help get us there. Today our most critical need is to avoid the harm this coverage gap poses, and I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort--to preserve drug access for our seniors so both they, ad our Medicare system, realize the benefits of modern medicine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, with whom I have worked for many years to achieve affordable prescription drug coverage for our seniors. We have certainly come a long way from back where we were nearly 10 years ago. Yet much remains to be done. As we have seen, the implementation of the Medicare Part D benefit has been difficult, and there is no doubt we are still on the road to a sustainable benefit which our seniors can easily navigate. The complexity of the benefit is certainly posing a hazard to many of our seniors. Today we face a crisis as millions of seniors are entering a gap in their prescription drug coverage--the so-called doughnut hole. In fact, when a senior's drug costs exceed $2,250 this year, they will no longer receive benefits until their spending reaches $5,100. That leaves seniors with a full $2,850 of drug costs to absorb before they receive a single cent of coverage. And they must continue to pay premiums. The Kaiser Foundation has reported that an estimated 7 million seniors will be affected by this coverage gap. How will they continue to receive essential medications? Earlier this year, I offered legislation which would have addressed this issue by allowing every beneficiary to change their plan once this year so that those beneficiaries who realized that they require a more comprehensive plan could choose to change to an appropriate plan. We know that selecting drug coverage was a challenging process for seniors, all the more so as the deadline loomed and they struggled to get assistance. Many may have made a good decision, but their circumstances may have since changed significantly. How many of us know of a senior who has had a major illness or hospitalization just since January? Most seniors in that situation will have changes in their medications as a result and often will use more prescription drugs and likely more expensive ones as well. Finally, with coverage available, there is little doubt that physicians were encouraged to prescribe medications that at last their patients could afford--drugs which could prevent serious illness, such as heart disease. Yet now, just as seniors see the possibility of a future with better health, the cost of that critical treatment may be unsustainable. So millions are facing the dilemma we have seen before-- cutting doses or even discontinuing medications. This must not occur again. As many medical experts will tell you, to stop taking essential medications or to begin rationing their use will pose serious safety risks to many of our beneficiaries. That undermines the benefits we should see from Part D--improved health and decreased health expenditures. So Senator Wyden and I are here to offer a solution--one which, I might add, both HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have previously suggested they would pursue. That solution is a simple one--to allow those facing a coverage gap to change to a plan which would offer continuous coverage. That solution has simply not been employed and that compels us to act today, to protect our seniors. The bill I rise to introduce today--the Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act--truly gives a second chance to those who most need this coverage. Under this legislation we require that CMS notify those who are approaching the coverage gap and give them an option of making a one-time plan change in order to obtain essential drug coverage. Under our legislation, beneficiaries could change to any plan which would provide continuous coverage. That includes drug plans which provide generic or brand-name drugs as well as Medicare Advantage plans offering comprehensive drug coverage. In a few States, there is simply not an option which allows a beneficiary to obtain continuous brand-name drug coverage. I note that in my State of Maine, as well as in New Hampshire and Alaska, such coverage simply cannot be obtained. So this legislation directs the Secretary to provide an option for beneficiary enrollment in a plan with brand-name drug coverage outside their region. That is simply fair, and it is essential to ensure that we don't see the doughnut hole threaten the health of our seniors. We know that this coverage gap is an issue we simply must address. Seniors need to be able to plan and budget and count on a predictable monthly cost for their essentials of life. When the Congress adopted Part D 3 years ago, we said we never wanted to make seniors again choose between buying food and buying essential medicines. Yet without addressing the doughnut hole now, we will put seniors in that exact position again. So this legislation also asks the GAO to undertake a study of options for eliminating the doughnut hole--looking at ways to level the benefit structure--including how we might do so without increasing federal expenditures. I note that one might be able to accomplish this, without changing the beneficiary's copayment rates appreciably. Obviously, if we saw some improvement in the pricing of drugs, that certainly would help get us there. Today our most critical need is to avoid the harm this coverage gap poses, and I call on my colleagues to join us in this effort--to preserve drug access for our seniors so both they, ad our Medicare system, realize the benefits of modern medicine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 created the National Veterans Business Development Corporation--The Veterans Corporation--to address gaps in providing small business and entrepreneurship assistance to veterans and service-disabled veterans. These services are to be delivered through newly created, community-based veterans business resource centers, VBRCs. The legislation authorized Federal funding through fiscal year 2004, with the requirement that the Corporation ``institute and implement a plan to raise private funds and become a self- sustaining corporation.'' While the Veterans Corporation's purpose and mission are well- intentioned, in practice, the Corporation has been unable to become self-sustaining and continues to rely on congressional appropriations. Furthermore, the Corporation's funding concerns have diminished its ability to create a vibrant national network of VBRCs. The Corporation's struggles have led it astray from the original intent of the law and hurt its delivery of services to our Nation's veterans. As such, my colleagues and I are introducing legislation to reauthorize the Veterans Corporation and to improve the direction of the Corporation as it works to serve veteran and service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs. Although the Veterans Corporation has fallen on hard times, its vision of assisting veterans with their business needs is still admirable. In fact, according to the Small Business Administration, about 22 percent of veterans were either purchasing or starting a new business or considering doing so in 2004. Moreover, almost 72 percent of these new veteran entrepreneurs planned to employ at least one person at the outset of their new venture. Supporting veterans' small business needs has become increasingly important as soldiers begin to return from continuing U.S. military operations worldwide. I have worked hard to put the Veterans Corporation on the track to success and to support the veteran entrepreneurs and veteran-owned small businesses that it serves. I have led efforts to ensure proper oversight of the Corporation, as well as assisted the Corporation through appropriate legislative action. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I requested a Government Accountability Office, GAO, study, released in August 2004, to ensure that the Veterans Corporation was meeting its responsibilities and the needs of our Nation's veterans. The GAO report concluded that the Veterans Corporation faced a number of challenges in achieving self-sufficiency, noting that dramatically lower-than-expected revenues delayed the estimated date for achieving self-sustaining operations from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009. The GAO was also concerned with the Corporation's distinction as a government corporation,'' as determined by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice. This determination subjected the Corporation to numerous agency requirements and drained significant resources away from serving veterans. Again, this designation inhibited the Corporation's ability to become self- sustaining. In the fall of 2004, I introduced emergency legislation that was passed into law to clarify the Corporation's status as a ``quasi- private entity,'' not a ``government corporation.'' At the time, this legislation relieved the 12-employee Corporation from burdensome Federal agency reporting requirements. Following the enactment of this legislation, many of my colleagues and I encouraged the Corporation to work hard to get its fiscal house in order and to focus on reaching out to veterans in local communities, particularly through VBRCs. Unfortunately, the Corporation's most recent efforts to become self-sustaining have yielded insufficient results. Furthermore, since its inception, the Corporation has only succeeded in establishing four VBRCs. Therefore, it is appropriate to restructure the corporation to meet the original intent of the law and to better serve our veteran entrepreneurs. I would like to thank Senators Kerry, Talent, and Akaka for working together with me to craft the bipartisan ``Veterans Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2006.'' We believe that this bill will clarify current law directing the Veterans Corporation, improve the Corporation's services to veterans by stressing the need to create VBRCs, and protecting the American taxpayer by ensuring that the Corporation meets its self-sustaining requirement. More specifically, this legislation will focus the Corporation's purpose and mission to emphasize establishing a national network of information and assistance centers for use by veterans and the public. This bill would strictly guide the Corporation's ability to access public funds. Although the legislation would reauthorize funding at $2 million for fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2009, the funds would be directed through the Small Business Administration's Office of Veterans' Business Development. These funds would only be allocated to the Corporation if it first matches those funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Any funds not expended would revert back to the Treasury. Furthermore, there is a provision that restricts the amount of revenue the Corporation can raise from fee-for-service tools or direct charge, to the veteran receiving services. Our legislation also reinforces current law by requiring that the Veterans Corporation must develop a plan to become self-sustaining and would add the requirement that the Corporation include an independent audit in its annual report to Congress, and includes a GAO audit to ensure review and compliance. Finally, the legislation will postpone the transfer of duties from the SBA's Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs to the Corporation, and improve notification of the Corporation's services to veterans and transitioning service members.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue of tremendous significance to countless Americans and to generations to come--the matter of stem cell research. I thank the majority leader for his tireless efforts to ensure consideration of stem cell legislation. The bottom line is, there is research we could be conducting today that could help us treat--and in some cases cure--some of our most serious diseases. That is why two-thirds of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research and why I have cosponsored H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The promise of stem cell legislation lies in the simple fact that embryonic stem cells have the unique potential to develop into any of the cells which could be needed to treat the multitude of diseases from which Americans suffer. The vast potential of stem cell therapy is key to many future therapy because in so many diseases, cells are lost and their function is often irreplaceable. Stem cells offer an opportunity to actually replace cells which are lost. Consider today that 20 million Americans live with diabetes. Despite treatment with drugs and insulin, many experience vision loss, injury to extremities, heart disease and other complications. For years, scientists have sought to find a cure. And today stem cells offer that potential to end dependence on insulin, freeing millions from diabetes. In many diseases, there simply is not even a therapy to replace the function of lost cells. Brain disorders such as Parkinson's disease, ALS or ``Lou Gehrig's disease,'' and Alzheimer's disease have only limited treatment options available. We simply cannot replace the function which is lost. But with new therapies derived from stem cells, we could see major breakthroughs in avoiding the terrible toll that millions now experience. Today the Senate is considering three bills. The first of these, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, certainly addresses an issue about which I expect there is no disagreement in the Senate. No embryo should ever be conceived for the purpose of producing stem cells. That is not at issue. Nor does any reputable scientist desire to work with human tissue produced in an animal. These prohibitions are not controversial and I believe my colleagues will join me in supporting them. In fact, 1 year ago this week, I joined with Senators Feinstein, Specter, Hatch, and others to introduce the Human Cloning Ban Act to make indisputably clear another prohibition--that no human would be cloned. Nor is stem cell research about conducting research on embryos. I do share with the majority leader the concern that we address the highest levels of ethical standards, and I have great confidence that with the Federal Government playing a role in this research, we can bring such standards to bear. This is essential--that the Federal Government be constructively engaged. The second piece of legislation concerns stem cell research already supported by the Federal Government. My colleague, Senator Santorum, has introduced legislation--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754--to promote the use of ``alternative stem cells.'' These are typically ``adult stem cells.'' These cells are already partly specialized, and have the potential to develop into several kinds of cells. Yet they are not the same as embryonic stem cells, which can develop into potentially any kind of tissue. So their use is limited. Cord blood stem cells are an example of this type of cell, and they have certainly proven useful in treating some diseases. I must note that no obstacles currently exist to the kind of research the Santorum bill addresses. Clearly, adult stem cells have potential, and certainly research on them should continue to be pursued. Yet by passing this bill we do not open any new avenues to our scientists. In fact, we can make them take a detour. This is why. We know that in order to use embryonic stem cells to make cells which can be used to treat a disease--like diabetes--scientists must learn how to make the cell become the right type. But an adult stem cell is actually already somewhat specialized, so one could not use them to produce many of the types of cells we need to produce new therapies. Essentially, one would have to take such a stem cell and reverse its development back to an embryonic stage and then begin the task to develop it into the specialized cell required. It is as if you were driving down an interstate on a trip, took an exit, made a few turns, and then decided to back up in reverse all the way to the interstate in an attempt to try another destination. This is not the way to get where you are going. So while adult stem cells have promise--they certainly are not comparable to an embryonic cell--with its potential to become any type of cell in the body. And even if you could turn an adult stem cell into an embryonic stem cell--you have simply doubled the obstacles and work required to reach your destination--which is a cure. That means millions of lives lost as you pursue a convoluted course. . . .when embryonic stem cells provide a far more direct path to creating cures. That is why I am a sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act--H.R. 810--the third bill on which we will vote. Remember that we shared hope for progress back in August of 2001 when the President declared research could utilize the stem cell lines then in existence. Yet scientists have found that many of the cells were contaminated or otherwise unusable. In part we know that even when a stem cell line is created, it cannot reproduce indefinitely. So we must address how we may obtain additional cell lines for medical research. I thank Senators Specter and Harkin, and Representatives Castle and DeGette for joining together to work to address the fundamental question of federal participation in embryonic stem cell research. The legislation which they produced sets a very constrained set of circumstances under which embryonic stems cells may be obtained in order to assure we can move this vital research forward within an ethical framework. Never will an embryo be created for research purposes, nor does this legislation facilitate such studies. The act assures that an embryo may be used only when it would not ever be used for infertility treatment. Donation must be voluntary, under full informed consent and no financial or other inducement may be given. The fact is that fertility treatment has allowed many to have families whom otherwise could not. A consequence of this remarkable therapy is that some embryos are created which will not be used. I must note that under the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, it will be the couple who will--under no bias--decide whether they will be used. This legislation facilitates that donation. Today Americans who have faced fertility problems are facing the question of what to do with unused embryos. Indefinite storage is not truly an option--we know that we cannot maintain the viability of these embryos indefinitely. So given the choices available, some couples see the potential to help those suffering from serious disease. It assures that this gift can be given and used to help medical progress. I believe many Americans who have undergone fertility treatment and realized a gift of life in their families will opt to save lives through a donation which promises to save many lives. But it must always be individual conscience that is the determinative factor--and I respect the views and conscience of each and every individual on this matter. There can be no doubt that stem cell research will move forward. The real question is whether our Nation will be engaged . . . whether our scientists will realize the breakthroughs . . . whether we will produce the treatments. Or whether those developments will draw our best minds and new medical investment abroad, where American vision and oversight will not influence the future of medicine. I believe in stem cell research. More than 70 percent of the American people believe in stem cell research. I believe in it because I cannot look at a person suffering from a debilitating, and even fatal disease and support prohibitions which impede ethical research aimed at alleviating of that suffering. That is why I joined with my colleagues in the Senate in urging President Bush to ease the current restrictions on the use of stem cells so that research can move forward and lives could be saved. That is why I am a sponsor of the Senate version of this legislation introduced by Senators Specter and Harkin. It is why I urge my colleagues to give that bill their support. This is the bill which will make a difference. I urge the President to reconsider this issue, and urge his support. Hopefully he will not veto this legislation because ultimately the alternative is to accept the status quo. The status quo is not right for those suffering from these diseases and for future generations who will. I think back to President Reagan's passing 2 years ago, and remember the outpouring of concern we all had for our former President, and the First Lady and their entire family. We spoke much of the tragedy of Alzheimer's Disease and how we must do more to alleviate the suffering. Nancy Reagan inspired us all with her courage--and inspires us no less in her call for research which could alleviate the suffering from so many diseases. Her recent words call out to us, ``A lot of time is being wasted . . . A lot of people who could be helped are not being helped.'' I cannot think of a more significant living memorial to our former President than to allow more research to be done in order to find new cures for diseases affecting millions of people. Today I ask my colleagues to consider allowing individuals--who have through modern medical science, enjoyed a gift of life, to contribute to saving other lives. That is exactly what H.R. 810 does, and that is why we must send this bill to the President and he must sign it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have previously introduced a bill to regulate payroll tax deposit agents. This bill will help to protect small businesses from payroll tax fraud and provide them with greater confidence when working with payroll service providers that are registered with the Internal Revenue Service and bonded or audited. In the fall of 2003, small businessman Roger Cyr, the owner of the Lily Moon Cafe in Saco, ME, learned that he was the victim of payroll tax fraud and owed $52,000 in back taxes. He was one of a number of small business owners in Maine who were forced to pay their payroll taxes twice after an unscrupulous payroll provider ran off with their tax deposits instead of making the required payments to the IRS. Unfortunately, I know that this type of payroll fraud is not unique to Maine and has also occurred in Utah, Iowa, as well as elsewhere. When payroll tax fraud occurs, many small owners, mom-and-pop companies, and other businesses are forced to pay their payroll taxes twice. This additional and unexpected expense can drive many of these companies out of business. These payroll fraud cases obscure the fact that most small businesses use payroll providers that are honest, meticulous, and trustworthy. The majority of payroll tax agents pay their clients' taxes accurately and on time, provide outstanding service, and help their clients with a range of complicated tax and accounting issues. In order to protect small business owners from the few dishonest payroll providers, and to protect the honest small payroll providers from the bad actors in their industry, I have introduced the payroll tax deposit agent's bill. My bill contains a number of provisions designed to guard small business owners against fraud by increasing the IRS' oversight of the payroll service providers. The bill creates a separate section of the Internal Revenue Code that will govern the payroll industry, it defines the responsibilities of payroll tax deposit agents, and requires all agents to register with the IRS or be penalized. The bill requires payroll agents to inform their clients of the clients' continued liability for all payroll taxes and the clients' need to periodically verify that their taxes are paid in full. The bill penalizes payroll providers that collect but fail to make required payments by extending section 6672 penalties to all payroll tax agents. These provisions also provide some reasonable flexibility to small payroll service providers. It gives payroll providers a choice between obtaining a surety bond or submitting to a third party audit that verifies if a payroll company's books are solid and well managed. Many small payroll service providers prefer audit option, which confirms that the payroll agent is making their client's tax deposit completely and on time, over bonding--as surety bonds can be very difficult for many small businesses to obtain. Additionally, small payroll agents argue that a third party audit actually provides their clients more protection against fraud than bonding because the audit verifies the payroll agent's sound financial practices while a surety bond only provides a limited reimbursement in cases of wrongdoing. Many of these payroll tax agent provisions were already approved by the Senate Finance Committee as part of the Good Government Act. The Good Government Act was approved by the Senate Finance Committee and passed the Senate by unanimous consent agreement in May of 2004. Unfortunately, the Good Governance Act never made it out of conference. Now, as I introduce this bill, I am hoping that we can help protect our small businesses by seeing that these necessary payroll protections become law. I would like to encourage my colleagues to help protect our small businesses from devious payroll tax agents by increasing IRS oversight and protections as contained in this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join with my dear colleague, Senator Feinstein, to address a critical problem--the prevention of HIV infection. HIV/AIDS affects people of all walks of life and all corners of the globe. Today over 40 million are infected with HIV. In the United States today, we have seen HIV infection become a much more manageable disease as modern medications have enabled so many to lead productive lives. That was certainly not so ten years ago. Today the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, is intended to extend the progress we have made to countries where resources are so limited that HIV infection has inevitably led to AIDS and death. PEPFAR is intended to prevent 7 million new infections, to bring 2 million into treatment, and to provide care for approximately 10 million with HIV/AIDS. Prevention is clearly key to stopping this global epidemic. In Uganda we have seen remarkable progress made in preventing infection when a combined strategy was employed which promoted abstinence, faithfulness in marriage, and condom use--the ``ABC'' approach. The Congress saw this strategy could be effective, and many sought to ensure that abstinence would be supported in PEPFAR. In fact, a statutory requirement mandates that one-third of all PEPFAR prevention monies are dedicated to the exclusive use of abstinence and faithfulness in marriage to prevent HIV infection. It is critical to recognize that abstinence, and even marital faithfulness, is not enough to stem the tide of this epidemic. Abstinence is not a relevant means of protection if you are, for example, a married woman who has an HIV-positive husband. That woman needs protection, whether that be a condom, a microbicide, or other means to protect herself. We also recognize that sexual transmission is certainly not the only means of transmitting HIV. We have seen newborns and infants infected during delivery and nursing. We have seen failures of hygiene in hospital settings cause HIV/AIDS. We have seen HIV spread by drug abuse. Each of these must be addressed to reduce the spread the HIV virus. So we can see that while devoting funds for abstinence programs to prevent sexual transmission of HIV may be justified, one certainly could harm other efforts with a mandate that one-third of all funds be so dedicated. That is indeed what has transpired. In April the GAO reported that countries are encountering difficulty in meeting their prevention needs because they must spend one-third of all their prevention funds on abstinence and faithfulness programs. They know they should not ignore other prevention strategies. Sometimes they end up spending more than needed on prevention as a result, while in other cases essential prevention programs are sacrificed. Consider the actual impact of such a rigid funding requirement today. The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has reported that in Swaziland, nearly half of the women visiting their health clinics are HIV-infected. Abstinence education is not germane to these women--nor is faithfulness. They wish to avoid infecting their children. So the needs of a given country, and even of a local community, must take precedence. A one-size-fits-all approach certainly does not work. That is why I have joined Senator Feinstein today in introducing legislation to address the problems which the GAO described. It does this quite simply. First, it acknowledges that abstinence can play a role in preventing HIV infection. As such, the bill maintains a requirement for abstinence--so that at least one-third of funds used for preventing sexual transmission will be dedicated to such programs. Yet with two-thirds available for other means, we know countries can respond with all appropriate prevention strategies. By setting the abstinence funding requirement so it applies only to sexual transmission, we will avoid impacting those programs which prevent nonsexual transmission of HIV. We cannot forget that these other strategies--such as reducing mother-to-child transmission--are major needs in some localities. Our legislation does a second critical thing. The current statute requires exclusivity in funded abstinence programs. If, for example, your program desired to dispense condoms, you could not do so, even if this was a very minor part of your program's prevention efforts. Now consider again the ``discordant'' couple--where only one spouse is infected. Would anyone propose that in that marriage, one should not help the uninfected partner remain so? Our legislation provides a bit of flexibility and allows funded abstinence programs to utilize other strategies such as condoms as a minor part of their prevention program. That is simply commonsense. It follows what we have seen to work--the ``ABC'' approach. Finally, this legislation does a third thing, and that is to simply recognize that sexually active youth who live in a country where HIV infection is spreading through the general population should be considered at high risk of contracting HIV and provided with information on the complete range of tools to prevent the spread of HIV. We simply must not lose a generation to AIDS prevention can be so effective. I thank the President for his leadership in bringing the PEPFAR effort forward to help millions realize the promise of a future in which HIV will no longer threaten their future. Today, I ask my colleagues to join with Senator Feinstein and me in seeing this legislation is enacted to ensure that we address the funding problems identified by the GAO and effectively employ HIV/AIDS prevention to stem this global epidemic.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Chair would like to inform the members of the committee that the committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in Russell 428A entitled ``Strengthening Participation of Small Businesses in Federal Contracting and Innovation Research Programs.'' subcommittee on public lands and forests

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing another piece of legislation with Senator Feinstein that addresses the critical issue of the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2006. The Senator from California and I have come together once again--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign oil, the historically high costs of energy, the state of our environment, and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to further securing our Nation and its future. The EXTEND Act, also cosponsored by Senator Kerry, takes a comprehensive and practical approach to assure that America gets the maximum possible energy savings and relief from high energy prices at the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them where necessary to achieve these policy goals. The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing 4 years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make rational investments. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. I want to encourage businesses to make investments to qualify for energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides 4 years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with long lead times. I am pleased to have the support of Finance Committee Chairman Grassley for crafting the correct policy for large-scale commercial projects, recognizing that these large commercial building projects take years to design and build. As a mater of fact, I entered into a colloquy with the chairman the day EPAct 2005 passed the Senate and received his assurance that he will continue to work with me to make this a long-term policy of the Tax Code. Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of incentives based truly on performance. The Snowe-Feinstein legislation also extends the applicability of the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders and equipment manufacturers. I have worked hard over the past 5 years for performance-based energy tax incentives for commercial buildings--one-third of energy usage is from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made with the extension of these incentives. My energy efficiency tax incentives provisions for commercial buildings that came to fruition in the EPAct 2005 were tasked to Treasury to promulgate regulations to harmonize with the law. On June 2, 2006, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance on how to comply with section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code establishing a deduction for commercial buildings that achieve a reduction in energy consumption of 50 percent. Unfortunately, the guidance is inadequate, according to energy efficiency experts, which may stem from the fact that we are into some uncharted territory and there may be a basic lack of understanding of what it takes to make energy efficiency tax incentives work, and specifically those based on performance, not cost. It is critical that the IRS guidance is written correctly so as to actually incentivize greater energy efficiencies while making sure any guidance promotes the best use of taxpayer dollars. I brought these issues to the attention of the now Secretary of the Treasury Paulson at his nomination hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on June 27, and I look forward to working with his people at Treasury to resolve these important issues relating to the IRS guidance. It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide electric capacity for the year 2017. In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs. The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in utility bills by 2017, as a direct result of the reductions in energy consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households over an additional $30 billion annually. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the Feinstein-Snowe 10 in 10 CAFE standards legislation introduced this past week as the bill is yet another piece for solving the Nation's energy crisis. The ten in ten measure is straightforward--we increase the average mileage of each company's vehicles fleet by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years--10 in 10. This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025--the same amount we currently import daily from the Persian Gulf-- while eliminating 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, a climate change-causing greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere. Certainly, we ought to be able to at least meet these goals. Yet, thus far, Congress and the administration have regrettably sent exactly the wrong message at a time when we have already witnessed a crisis-- and that is, a ``can't do'' attitude, rather than the ``can do'' spirit that has defined progress in America since our fledgling days as a nation. We have the means, we have seen the demonstrated necessity, we possess the entrepreneurial spirit, what exactly is there left not to get? There should be no question that increasing fuel economy standards an average of 1 mile per gallon across a manufacturer's fleet for the next 10 years is a challenge to which this country can rise--in fact, it is long overdue. We are long past the point of watching and waiting it out while the U.S. auto makers dither--Congress has a responsibility to provide leadership on this issue by refusing to accept the notion that ``this is as good as it gets.'' We must reject the administration's request that we just cede to the Department of Transportation our statutory authority to reform CAFE standards for passenger cars--especially as DOT has had the opportunity to increase CAFE standards for SUVs, minivans, and light pickups, but only incrementally increased the miles per gallon to 22.2 mpg by model year 2007 that is an increase of less than 1 mile per gallon. This minimal increase will save less than 2 weeks worth of gasoline each year for the next 2 decades. We can do better and under our legislation we will do better. A wide variety of experts, including some of those who took part in the 2001 congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences report on CAFE standards, agree that the most effective action we could take today to decrease the price of gasoline is to increase fuel economy standards for all vehicles--passenger cars and light trucks. Yet the only time we raised fuel economy standards for passenger cars was back in 1976. Think about it--in 1976, our computers were about the size of cars--and now we hold them in the palm of our hand--are we really saying the United States of America doesn't have the technological wherewithal to provide 10 more miles-per-gallon over the next 10 years, at a time when the transportation sector accounts for fully 40 percent of all the Nation's fossil fuel consumption? Morever, we give manufacturers the flexibility to develop an entire fleet that accomplishes the overall fuel economy standard in the most cost-effective manner--it can be done and it must be done. And with a third of American drivers now considering trading their current vehicle for another that gets great fuel economy, frankly, if our auto makers had embraced higher fuel economy standards when our SUV loophole bill was first introduced in 2001, or way back in the early 1990s when an increase in CAFE was a compelling argument for that decade's energy bill, perhaps the U.S. industry would be in better shape today. Consumers certainly would be. And how can there be any question--at this time when our reliance on foreign oil has skyrocketed from 44 percent 3 decades ago to 72 percent this year--and prices hover at near historic highs of $70 per barrel-- that we must take a page from America's greatest quests--like putting a man on the Moon--to finally reduce our consumption of precious fossil fuels. We are financing the ambitions of radical leaders in some of the most volatile regions of the world to supply the energy to power America's future. This makes no sense--not when our bill, through its resulting fuel savings, would effectively develop Middle Eastern oil production within our own country within just the next 19 years. Mr. President, these two bills, the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 Act, are synonymous with the security of America's future. These bills are two pieces of an overall national energy picture that we need to address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move to substantive legislation such as the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 CAFE bill. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we cannot wait for yet another crisis. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the administration to provide the American people the leadership they deserve on these issues.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing another piece of legislation with Senator Feinstein that addresses the critical issue of the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2006. The Senator from California and I have come together once again--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign oil, the historically high costs of energy, the state of our environment, and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to further securing our Nation and its future. The EXTEND Act, also cosponsored by Senator Kerry, takes a comprehensive and practical approach to assure that America gets the maximum possible energy savings and relief from high energy prices at the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them where necessary to achieve these policy goals. The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing 4 years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make rational investments. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. I want to encourage businesses to make investments to qualify for energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides 4 years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects with long lead times. I am pleased to have the support of Finance Committee Chairman Grassley for crafting the correct policy for large-scale commercial projects, recognizing that these large commercial building projects take years to design and build. As a mater of fact, I entered into a colloquy with the chairman the day EPAct 2005 passed the Senate and received his assurance that he will continue to work with me to make this a long-term policy of the Tax Code. Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of incentives based truly on performance. The Snowe-Feinstein legislation also extends the applicability of the EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders and equipment manufacturers. I have worked hard over the past 5 years for performance-based energy tax incentives for commercial buildings--one-third of energy usage is from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made with the extension of these incentives. My energy efficiency tax incentives provisions for commercial buildings that came to fruition in the EPAct 2005 were tasked to Treasury to promulgate regulations to harmonize with the law. On June 2, 2006, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance on how to comply with section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code establishing a deduction for commercial buildings that achieve a reduction in energy consumption of 50 percent. Unfortunately, the guidance is inadequate, according to energy efficiency experts, which may stem from the fact that we are into some uncharted territory and there may be a basic lack of understanding of what it takes to make energy efficiency tax incentives work, and specifically those based on performance, not cost. It is critical that the IRS guidance is written correctly so as to actually incentivize greater energy efficiencies while making sure any guidance promotes the best use of taxpayer dollars. I brought these issues to the attention of the now Secretary of the Treasury Paulson at his nomination hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on June 27, and I look forward to working with his people at Treasury to resolve these important issues relating to the IRS guidance. It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide electric capacity for the year 2017. In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs. The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in utility bills by 2017, as a direct result of the reductions in energy consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households over an additional $30 billion annually. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the Feinstein-Snowe 10 in 10 CAFE standards legislation introduced this past week as the bill is yet another piece for solving the Nation's energy crisis. The ten in ten measure is straightforward--we increase the average mileage of each company's vehicles fleet by 10 miles per gallon in 10 years--10 in 10. This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025--the same amount we currently import daily from the Persian Gulf-- while eliminating 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, a climate change-causing greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere. Certainly, we ought to be able to at least meet these goals. Yet, thus far, Congress and the administration have regrettably sent exactly the wrong message at a time when we have already witnessed a crisis-- and that is, a ``can't do'' attitude, rather than the ``can do'' spirit that has defined progress in America since our fledgling days as a nation. We have the means, we have seen the demonstrated necessity, we possess the entrepreneurial spirit, what exactly is there left not to get? There should be no question that increasing fuel economy standards an average of 1 mile per gallon across a manufacturer's fleet for the next 10 years is a challenge to which this country can rise--in fact, it is long overdue. We are long past the point of watching and waiting it out while the U.S. auto makers dither--Congress has a responsibility to provide leadership on this issue by refusing to accept the notion that ``this is as good as it gets.'' We must reject the administration's request that we just cede to the Department of Transportation our statutory authority to reform CAFE standards for passenger cars--especially as DOT has had the opportunity to increase CAFE standards for SUVs, minivans, and light pickups, but only incrementally increased the miles per gallon to 22.2 mpg by model year 2007 that is an increase of less than 1 mile per gallon. This minimal increase will save less than 2 weeks worth of gasoline each year for the next 2 decades. We can do better and under our legislation we will do better. A wide variety of experts, including some of those who took part in the 2001 congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences report on CAFE standards, agree that the most effective action we could take today to decrease the price of gasoline is to increase fuel economy standards for all vehicles--passenger cars and light trucks. Yet the only time we raised fuel economy standards for passenger cars was back in 1976. Think about it--in 1976, our computers were about the size of cars--and now we hold them in the palm of our hand--are we really saying the United States of America doesn't have the technological wherewithal to provide 10 more miles-per-gallon over the next 10 years, at a time when the transportation sector accounts for fully 40 percent of all the Nation's fossil fuel consumption? Morever, we give manufacturers the flexibility to develop an entire fleet that accomplishes the overall fuel economy standard in the most cost-effective manner--it can be done and it must be done. And with a third of American drivers now considering trading their current vehicle for another that gets great fuel economy, frankly, if our auto makers had embraced higher fuel economy standards when our SUV loophole bill was first introduced in 2001, or way back in the early 1990s when an increase in CAFE was a compelling argument for that decade's energy bill, perhaps the U.S. industry would be in better shape today. Consumers certainly would be. And how can there be any question--at this time when our reliance on foreign oil has skyrocketed from 44 percent 3 decades ago to 72 percent this year--and prices hover at near historic highs of $70 per barrel-- that we must take a page from America's greatest quests--like putting a man on the Moon--to finally reduce our consumption of precious fossil fuels. We are financing the ambitions of radical leaders in some of the most volatile regions of the world to supply the energy to power America's future. This makes no sense--not when our bill, through its resulting fuel savings, would effectively develop Middle Eastern oil production within our own country within just the next 19 years. Mr. President, these two bills, the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 Act, are synonymous with the security of America's future. These bills are two pieces of an overall national energy picture that we need to address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move to substantive legislation such as the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 CAFE bill. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we cannot wait for yet another crisis. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the administration to provide the American people the leadership they deserve on these issues.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support in the strongest terms the proposed constitutional amendment to grant the States and Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our flag occupies a truly unique place in the hearts of millions of citizens as a solemn and sacred banner of freedom. As a national emblem of the world's greatest democracy, the American flag should be treated with unyielding respect and scrupulous care. At this time when Americans are fighting and, tragically, perishing under the flag of the United States, it is long overdue that we pass a constitutional amendment to protect that very symbol of American ideals from acts of desecration. We lost the effort by just 4 votes 6 years ago in the Senate. Meanwhile, the other body has done its duty and passed a bill twice. We in this chamber must finally do the right thing and protect our flag once and for all and for all time With the introduction of this resolution, we resume our effort to protect the greatest symbol of the American story and American experience. There is no more powerful example of freedom, democracy, and our steadfast commitment to those principles than the American flag , and it is altogether fitting and just that we try to ensure that it is publicly displayed with pride, dignity, and honor. I cannot underscore the point enough that the flag is not merely a visual icon to us, nor should it be. The American flag is not just another piece of cloth. It is not just another banner or logo or emblem. It is our revered testament to all that we have defended and protected. Too many Americans have contributed too much and sacrificed too much . . . their labor, their passion, and in many cases their lives for the flag to be simply and frivolously regarded. The flag permeates our national history and relays the story of America in its most direct, and most eloquent terms. Indeed, knowing how the flag has changed--and in what ways it has remained constant--is to know the profound history and limitless hopes of this country. More than 220 years ago, a year after the colonies had made their historic decision to declare independence from Britain, the Second Continental Congress decided that the American flag would consist of 13 red and white alternating stripes and 13 white stars in a field of blue. These stars and blue field were to represent a new constellation in which freedom and government of the people, by the people and for the people would rule. The colors of the flag are representative, as well. Red was to represent hardiness and valor, white was to represent purity and innocence and blue was to represent vigilance, perseverance and justice. And as we all know, the constellation has grown to include 50 stars, but the number of stripes has remained constant. In this way, the flag tells all who view it that no matter how large America may become, she is forever rooted in the bedrock principles of freedom and self-government that led those first 13 colonies to forge a new nation. Even more significant is the fact that the flag also represents our enduring pledge to uphold these ideals. This dedication has exacted a high human toll, for which many of America's best and brightest have given their last full measure of devotion. It is in their memories and for their ultimate sacrifice to America's ideals that I am proud to support this amendment. Make no mistake, this amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court, in its 1990 U.S. verses Eichman ruling, held that burning the flag in political protest was constitutionally protected free speech. No one holds our right to free speech more dearly than I do. But I have long held that our free speech rights do not entitle us to consider the flag as merely personal property, to be treated any way we see fit, including its desecration for the purpose of political protest. The fact is the Eichman decision unnecessarily rejects the deeply held reverence millions of Americans have for our flag. With all the forums for public opinion available to Americans every day, from television and radio, to newspapers and Internet chat rooms, Americans are afforded ample opportunity to freely and fully exercise their first amendment rights, even if what they have to say is overwhelmingly unpopular with a majority of American citizens. At the heart of the issue is respect. I applaud the right to protest and to assemble in order to express opinion, dissent, or a point of view. Write letters to the editor. Start a website. Create a blog. Organize. Leaflet. March. Chant. Speak out. Petition. Do any and all of these things but do not burn our flag. As we consider this amendment, we must also remember that it is carefully drafted to simply allow the Congress and individual State legislatures to enact laws prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag, if they so choose. It certainly does not stipulate or require that such laws be enacted, although many States and the Federal Government have already demonstrated widespread support for doing so. In fact, 48 States, including my own State of Maine, along with the Federal Government, have had antiflag burning laws on their books for years and that was prior to the Supreme Court's rulings on this issue. So, in effect, what this resolution does is simply give the American flag the protection that almost all the States, the Federal Government, and a large majority of the American people have already endorsed. Whether our flag is flying over the U.S. Capitol, a State house, a military base, a school, Fenway Park, or on a flag pole on Main Street, the stars and stripes represent the ideals and values that are the foundation of this great Nation. Our flag has come to not only represent the pride we have for our Nation's past glories, but also to stand for the hope we all harbor for our Nation's future. Perhaps it was The Reverend Henry Ward Beecher who captured best the essence of the flag's meaning and symbolism more than a century ago when he wrote that ``a thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth.'' Mr. President, our flag represents not just the new constellation of freedom envisioned by our forebears, but the distillation of that freedom, too everything that was behind the forming of our nation and everything that informs our nation and who we are to this day. So, it is with undaunted pride and unwavering hope that I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to the 2007 Defense authorization bill which I cosponsored with my esteemed colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer. I also thank my other colleagues who have joined us in cosponsoring this amendment. It is my strong belief that all prisoners of war who die in captivity should be eligible for the Purple Heart, regardless of the cause of death, for they all will have paid the ultimate price. Approximately 17,000 prisoners of war--including fine servicemembers from my own great State of Maine--have died while in captivity since December 7, 1941--the start of World War II. More than 8,100 Korean war servicemen--46 from Maine--and more than 1,800 Americans--14 from Maine--remain unaccounted for from Vietnam. In rightful honor of all our prisoners of war, I am proud to be co- offering this amendment to the DOD authorization bill that would bestow the Purple Heart upon those Americans who perished while held captive as a result of starvation, disease, or maltreatment. Currently, only prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted by an instrument of war--such as a gunshot wound or intentional poisoning--are eligible for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. Those who die of starvation, disease, or other causes during captivity are not. How can we say that anyone who dies at the hands of our enemy doesn't deserve this mark of respect and honor from a grateful nation--whether they make the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield or behind barbed wire? They fought for America and died at the hands of our enemy--what more do we need to know and what more could they have given than their very lives? They and their families have earned this honor. The intent of this amendment is to correct this injustice by requiring the President, our Commander in Chief, to review the current circumstances establishing eligibility for the Purple Heart and advise Congress on modifications to the criteria for the Purple Heart award, which I strongly believe should take into account such inhuman war tactics as the deliberate withholding of medical treatment for injury or disease by enemy forces. Last month, the House Armed Services Committee adopted their version of the Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act--which had 216 cosponsors--during committee markup of the Defense authorization bill. The Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act has been endorsed by a number of prominent military and veterans organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Korean War Veterans Association, National League of POW/MIA Families, and the Tiger Survivors. The posthumous awarding of the Purple Heart Award to members of the armed services who died while in captivity or died due to injury or illness incurred while in captivity would be of only some comfort to the next of kin of these fine service men and women. I sincerely hope that the Senate Armed Service Committee will follow suit by taking similar action as the House and adopt this legislation

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Chair would like to inform the members of the committee that the committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. in Russell 428A on the nomination of Steven C. Preston to be the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you know, Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974. At that time, less than 20 percent of the private real property in this area was owned by Turkish Cypriots, with the rest owned by Greek Cypriots and foreigners. Turkey's invasion and subsequent occupation of northern Cyprus displaced people who are to this day prevented by the Turkish armed forces from returning to and repossessing their homes and properties. A large proportion of these properties were distributed to, and are currently being used by, the 120,000 Turkish settlers brought into the occupied area by Turkey. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. nationals today claim an interest in such property. Adding urgency to the plight of Greek-Cypriots and Americans who lost property in the wake of the invasion is a recent property development boom in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus. As an ever-increasing number of disputed properties are transferred or developed, the rightful owners' prospects for recovering their property or being compensated worsen. In 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had unlawfully deprived Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their properties in the north of the island. The Court ruled that the Government of Turkey was obliged to compensate the refugees for such deprivation, and to allow them to return home. It is to provide similar redress to the American victims of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus that my colleague Senator Menendez and I today introduce the American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act. A substantively identical bill has been proposed in the House of Representatives by Representative Pallone and 32 of his Republican and Democratic colleagues. This act would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate, and determine awards with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of northern Cyprus. To provide funds from which these awards would be paid, the act would urge the President to authorize the Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement for settlement of such claims with the Government of Turkey. The act would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over suits by U.S. nationals against any private persons--other than Turkey--occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. Lastly, the act would expressly waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S. nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial activity carried out in the United States. This bill represents an important step toward righting the internationally recognized wrong of the expropriation of property, including American property, in northern Cyprus in the wake of the 1974 invasion by the Turkish Army. I strongly urge my colleagues to promptly consider and pass this critical piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you know, Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974. At that time, less than 20 percent of the private real property in this area was owned by Turkish Cypriots, with the rest owned by Greek Cypriots and foreigners. Turkey's invasion and subsequent occupation of northern Cyprus displaced people who are to this day prevented by the Turkish armed forces from returning to and repossessing their homes and properties. A large proportion of these properties were distributed to, and are currently being used by, the 120,000 Turkish settlers brought into the occupied area by Turkey. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 U.S. nationals today claim an interest in such property. Adding urgency to the plight of Greek-Cypriots and Americans who lost property in the wake of the invasion is a recent property development boom in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus. As an ever-increasing number of disputed properties are transferred or developed, the rightful owners' prospects for recovering their property or being compensated worsen. In 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had unlawfully deprived Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their properties in the north of the island. The Court ruled that the Government of Turkey was obliged to compensate the refugees for such deprivation, and to allow them to return home. It is to provide similar redress to the American victims of Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus that my colleague Senator Menendez and I today introduce the American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus Claims Act. A substantively identical bill has been proposed in the House of Representatives by Representative Pallone and 32 of his Republican and Democratic colleagues. This act would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate, and determine awards with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of northern Cyprus. To provide funds from which these awards would be paid, the act would urge the President to authorize the Secretary of State to negotiate an agreement for settlement of such claims with the Government of Turkey. The act would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over suits by U.S. nationals against any private persons--other than Turkey--occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. Lastly, the act would expressly waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S. nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial activity carried out in the United States. This bill represents an important step toward righting the internationally recognized wrong of the expropriation of property, including American property, in northern Cyprus in the wake of the 1974 invasion by the Turkish Army. I strongly urge my colleagues to promptly consider and pass this critical piece of legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the grand opening of the Maine Discovery Center and dedication of the Chief Warrant Officer Kenneth Black Exhibition Hall in Rockland, ME. This event represents the culmination of a lifetime of exceptional achievement by former Coastguardsman Kenneth Black who nearly single- handedly amassed the largest collection of lighthouse lenses on display in a museum anywhere in the United States. The monumental efforts of Ken Black, known by many as ``Mr. Lighthouse,'' have been a lifelong pursuit and truly a labor of love. Ken started his first exhibit many years ago at the base of America's first light Station in Boston Harbor. When he was commanding officer of the Rockland Coast Guard Station in the 1970s, he created a display of artifacts at the entryway building at the base of the tower, and a small collection started to grow and take on a life of its own. So much so--that when the admiral in charge of the first Coast Guard district in Boston took note of what Ken was doing, he named him as the official curator of the First Coast Guard District Marine Exhibit. That appointment offered Ken a fortuitous opportunity to begin amassing lighthouse artifacts. Exemplifying the best of Maine's can-do spirit, Ken meticulously went to great lengths, literally piece by piece, to seek out, collect, and store these maritime marvels. Eventually, this collection would be housed in what would become known as the Shore Village Museum. Lacking pretense of any kind, this unassuming, home-spun dream became a landmark museum and a destination point for maritime and lighthouse enthusiasts everywhere until its closing in 2004. Because of Ken's persistent pursuit and uncommon initiative, his legacy of work can now be viewed as part of the Maine Lighthouse Museum which has the distinction of being home not just to the world-renown lighthouse lenses but also to one of the most revered exhibits of lighthouse artifacts and Coast Guard memorabilia in the United States. One thing is clear above all else, we owe Ken a great debt of gratitude for having the unrelenting industry, foresight, and diligence to collect, preserve, and showcase these artifacts. As the sponsor of the Maine Lights Program in the 104th Congress, I am extraordinarily proud of the indispensable contribution Ken has made to the discipline of lighthouse history. As I said in my letter on the opening of the Maine Lighthouse Museum last June, this legislation allowed many outstanding individuals and organizations to share their fondness for lighthouses by working to record the history of lighthouses and keep that history alive. And, indeed, that is precisely what has happened. Through the tireless and indomitable work of Kenneth Black, for whom this exhibition hall is rightfully named, generations today and to come will have the pleasure of viewing these time-honored artifacts. I saw them firsthand last summer when I toured the museum and was awed and extremely impressed, and I know that this new addition will be equally remarkable. For all of these reasons, I am deeply pleased to honor the astounding contributions that Ken has made toward bringing to greater light these valuable gems of history. I also want to acknowledge and thank the many individuals and groups who have shared in Ken's vision and joined with him in making this dream a reality. The city of Rockland and the State of Maine are incredibly fortunate to have this exceptional Lighthouse Museum in its midst. It is most fitting that the U.S. Coast Guard presented a well-deserved lifetime achievement award to Ken Black for unflagging vigilance and continued perseverance in saving and presenting these lighthouse artifacts.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that is vital to the protection of our oceans' large whale populations. Representatives from 69 nations will gather this month in St. Kitt's for the 58th meeting of the International Whaling Commission. The debates in which they will engage will address the future of the moratorium on commercial whaling and other limitations on worldwide whale hunting. For many years, the United States and our allies in the fight to conserve whales have held a majority position in this body, but indications suggest that this year our majority may be lost. In light of this, it is more imperative than ever that the United States clearly expresses its adamant opposition to any resumption of commercial whaling and continues to set an example as a leader in the fight to uphold whale conservation policies. Before the current commercial ban was instituted in 1982, member states attempted to manage whaling with a quota system. Due to ineffective reporting of catches by whaling nations, this program was an abject failure, and it directly necessitated implementation of the commercial ban. Yet over the past year, countries that favor lifting the ban on commercial whaling have continued their efforts to convince nations with no inherent interest in whaling to join the IWC and support measures to reduce whaling restrictions. The ultimate goal of these member states is to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. While it appears that the prowhaling states may have a majority at this year's meeting, they likely lack the three-quarters majority required to lift the ban. However, a majority would enable these states to make procedural changes that could facilitate their efforts in years to come. Any efforts to remove or weaken the prohibition would set whale conservation efforts back decades and fly in the face of the United States and other like-minded countries' well-established position in support of sound, effective whale conservation. My colleagues and I introduce this resolution to express our ardent support for the U.S. negotiators as they work to prevent prowhaling states from lifting the ban, and as our delegates attempt to enhance existing conservation methods. Even now, with commercial whaling prohibited, certain IWC member states plan to continue to expand their killing of large numbers of whales--including some endangered species-- for so-called scientific purposes. However, the IWC and leading marine mammal scientists have found that lethal whaling is no longer necessary to advance scientific research. In addition, some member states continue to whale commercially, harvesting an increasing number of whales with every passing year, by taking reservations to the moratorium. Such activities directly undermine the effectiveness of the IWC as a whole and weaken our hard-fought conservation efforts. Although opponents of the commercial whaling ban are unlikely to overturn the moratorium this year, we understand that such a ban is unlikely to last forever. To this end, the IWC may again consider a movement towards a revised management scheme, or RMS, to govern future whaling conservation and management decisions, including a framework for a sustainable harvest. But certain provisions must be part of any RMS if the United States is to support such an action. We must ensure that any RMS contains an increased reliance on sustainability of populations and legitimate scientific knowledge and research. It must also close any existing loopholes--such as the scientific exception-- that allow take of whales outside the scheme, had include appropriate compliance, enforcement, and transparency measures. I thank my colleagues who have signed on as cosponsors of this resolution for their ongoing support of marine conservation: Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Dole, Boxer, Feingold, Reed, Lautenberg, McCain, Lieberman, Collins, Wyden, Dodd, Feinstein, Menendez, Levin, Biden, Dayton, Jeffords, and Landrieu. Their actions will help ensure that whale populations, so critical to our marine ecosystems, continue to grace our oceans for generations to come. We must continue to support and strengthen the international agreements that govern activities detrimental to the well-being of some of the world's most threatened large mammals. Changes in the political climate have made our commitment to the protection of these species more vital than ever before, and I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our country has forever prided itself on providing individuals the opportunity to pursue a fair and prosperous existence. Our Nation's free markets enable small business owners to grow their enterprise and realize their dreams. Yet, small business owners and entrepreneurs are not blind to the costs of maintaining a free and open society. These same small business owners and entrepreneurs play a vital role in protecting freedom, at home and abroad, as members of the U.S. National Guard and Reserve Forces. In recent years, however, the Department of Defense, DOD, has placed greater reliance on our nation's Guard and Reserve forces. In fact, since Septeber 2001, over 550,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up in support of current operations, at the same time, making up nearly one-third of deployed service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Guard and Reserve members have been charged in assisting with recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, following some of the most devastating natural disasters in our country's history. As these brave men and women are called to serve our Nation, the small businesses they temporarily leave behind often suffer. Many affected small buinesses experience slowing production and lost sales or incur additional expenses to compensate for an employee's absence. As a result, self-employed Guard and Reserve members and small businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members are ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased call-ups. This is particularly troubling, because according to the majority of non-government-employed Guard and Reserve members are either self- employed or work for small businesses. To help stem the ill affects of Guard and Reserve call-ups on small businesses, Senator Craig and I are introducing the Patriot Loan Act of 2006. This legislation improves the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. The MREIDL program was created to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses that the business cannot meet, because an essential employee was ``called-up'' to active duty in their role as a military reservist. Specifically, our legislation would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. A maximum military reservist loan amount of $2,000,000 is the same level as many ofthe SBA's other loan programs, including: the 7(a) loans, international trade loans, and 504 Certified Development Corporation loans that serve a public policy goal. This bill would allow the SBA Administrator, either directly or through banks to offer loans up to $25,000 without requiring collateral fr a loan applicant. Currently, the BA offers military reservist loans up to $5,000 without requiring collateral. This provision would increase that level to eligible small businesses. The bill would also require the Administrator to give military reservist loan applications priority for processing and ensure that Guard and Reserve members are adequately assisted with their loan application by incorporating the support and expertise of SBA entrepreneurial development partners, such as Small Business Development Centers. Finally, the legislation requires the SBA and DOD to develop a joint website and printed materials providing information regarding the MREIDL program for Guard and Reserve members, and that the SBA and DOD jointly conduct a feasibility study on introducing business mobilization and interruption insurance for members of the Guard and Reserve forces, and increased utilization of credit unions affiliated with the DOD. I thank Senator Craig for working with me to help address this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our country has forever prided itself on providing individuals the opportunity to pursue a fair and prosperous existence. Our Nation's free markets enable small business owners to grow their enterprise and realize their dreams. Yet, small business owners and entrepreneurs are not blind to the costs of maintaining a free and open society. These same small business owners and entrepreneurs play a vital role in protecting freedom, at home and abroad, as members of the U.S. National Guard and Reserve Forces. In recent years, however, the Department of Defense, DOD, has placed greater reliance on our nation's Guard and Reserve forces. In fact, since Septeber 2001, over 550,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up in support of current operations, at the same time, making up nearly one-third of deployed service members in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Guard and Reserve members have been charged in assisting with recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, following some of the most devastating natural disasters in our country's history. As these brave men and women are called to serve our Nation, the small businesses they temporarily leave behind often suffer. Many affected small buinesses experience slowing production and lost sales or incur additional expenses to compensate for an employee's absence. As a result, self-employed Guard and Reserve members and small businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members are ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased call-ups. This is particularly troubling, because according to the majority of non-government-employed Guard and Reserve members are either self- employed or work for small businesses. To help stem the ill affects of Guard and Reserve call-ups on small businesses, Senator Craig and I are introducing the Patriot Loan Act of 2006. This legislation improves the U.S. Small Business Administration's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program. The MREIDL program was created to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet ordinary and necessary operating expenses that the business cannot meet, because an essential employee was ``called-up'' to active duty in their role as a military reservist. Specifically, our legislation would raise the maximum military reservist loan amount from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000. A maximum military reservist loan amount of $2,000,000 is the same level as many ofthe SBA's other loan programs, including: the 7(a) loans, international trade loans, and 504 Certified Development Corporation loans that serve a public policy goal. This bill would allow the SBA Administrator, either directly or through banks to offer loans up to $25,000 without requiring collateral fr a loan applicant. Currently, the BA offers military reservist loans up to $5,000 without requiring collateral. This provision would increase that level to eligible small businesses. The bill would also require the Administrator to give military reservist loan applications priority for processing and ensure that Guard and Reserve members are adequately assisted with their loan application by incorporating the support and expertise of SBA entrepreneurial development partners, such as Small Business Development Centers. Finally, the legislation requires the SBA and DOD to develop a joint website and printed materials providing information regarding the MREIDL program for Guard and Reserve members, and that the SBA and DOD jointly conduct a feasibility study on introducing business mobilization and interruption insurance for members of the Guard and Reserve forces, and increased utilization of credit unions affiliated with the DOD. I thank Senator Craig for working with me to help address this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution which was drafted by my esteemed colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, and thank my other colleagues who have cosponsored this resolution. This resolution was previously introduced in the 107th Congress, passed the Senate, but, unfortunately, time ran out in the House of Representatives to be passed. This resolution reflects the resolution introduced in the 107th Congress and is supported by the emergency managers from the participating States. Disasters know no boundaries. In January 1998, the worst ice storm in our region's history demolished power lines from Quebec, through upstate New York, across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, and into the Maritimes. As many as 4 million people were without electricity, some 700,000 for as long as 3 weeks, and damage topped $6 billion. And in August 2003, a blackout left millions of American and Canadian citizens and businesses again without electrical power. These events, and many of the more than 100 federally declared disasters in the Northeast in this past quarter century, have necessitated State and provincial emergency management organizations to request out-of-jurisdiction mutual assistance to deal with the emergency. In response to the ice storm, in June 1998, the New England Governors Conference and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed and later adopted, in July 2000, the International Emergency Management Assistance Compact, more commonly referred to as the compact. The compact is an arrangement of necessity in providing mutual assistance amongst jurisdictions for managing any type of emergency, or disaster, whether arising from natural, technological, or man-made causes. The State of Maine, along with New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, has entered into such a compact with the provinces of our good Canadian neighbor of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This compact arrangement provides the form and structure to the international mutual aid and addresses such issues as liability, payment, et cetera, in advance, before an emergency occurs, allowing for expedited deployment of resources and personnel at the time of the emergency. One crucial lesson learned of Hurricane Katrina is that in the aftermath of such a crisis, emergency responders need to focus on recovery, and not bureaucratic processes and redtape. Having this compact in place enables our emergency responders to focus on their mission of response and to avoid cross-jurisdictional obstacles. Enhancing an environment of joint communication, coordination and cooperation is crucial for a more secure region and an effective emergency response capability, and an International Emergency Management Group meets regularly to do just this, by implementing the compact and working closely together to develop plans, train and exercise for disasters and emergencies. This compact concept serves the best interests of our citizens of the United States, and of Canada, our good northern neighbor, as well. In summary, the best way to handle an emergency is to forward plan and to take as many actions of readiness and preparedness as possible, in advance, and as feasible. Our readiness and preparedness capabilities are indeed most enhanced when an obstacle-free platform is created for our emergency responders. This compact arrangement does just that, particularly addressing international and cross- jurisdictional issues. It is for this reason, I urge my fellow colleagues to, again, support this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will preserve the open, unrestricted nature of the Internet. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Inouye, with whom I have worked closely to draft this bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator Wyden, who has introduced similar net neutrality legislation, for his leadership on this issue. Having risen from its humble beginnings as an obscure tool for a few tech-savvy enthusiasts, the Internet now stands as the epicenter of commerce today. An April 2006 Pew Internet study cites that 73 percent of adults in the U.S. now use the Internet, 45 percent of whom use it for making major financial decisions. Last year alone, over $1.7 trillion in transactions took place on the Internet, and today 725,000 small businesses use e-commerce giant eBay as a way to reach customers. Because anyone, anywhere, can communicate and transact business with virtually any corner of the globe with an Internet connection, the benefits of the Internet on small businesses--and on rural places like my home State of Maine--cannot be overstated. The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. Anyone can send an e- mail or set up a Web site at little or no cost, and the marketplace has picked winners and losers, rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper. When users log onto the Internet, they take a lot of things for granted. They assume that they will be able to access whatever Web site they want, when they want to--and if they have a broadband connection, they expect this to happen at a high speed, regardless of what Web site they choose. They also assume that they can use any feature they like, anytime they choose--watching online videos, searching for information, making purchases, and sending e-mails and instant messages. They assume that they can attach devices to make their online experience better-- things such as Web cameras, game controllers, or extra hard drives. What they are assuming is called ``net neutrality,'' the principle at the core of the Internet's DNA. The idea is that the Internet should be open and free, restricted by no one. Unfortunately, all this may change very soon if Congress does not take action. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order removing virtually all regulation of Internet facilities that connect homes and businesses to the World Wide Web. Among the regulations lifted were the long-standing non-discrimination rules that required the owners of Internet facilities networks--in most cases cable and telephone companies--to allow delivery of all Internet content to the end user at the same speed, refraining from blocking any Web sites. These long-standing rules have enabled small businesses in Maine and across the country to have the same access to customers as giant corporations. Yet without the protections of the legislation we introduce today, those small businesses may be reduced to second-class citizen status on the Web. Telephone and cable companies supply broadband Internet service to 98 percent of Internet subscribers in this country. Recently, executives from several of the largest of these firms publicly indicated their intention to charge fees to Web site operators before giving them access to their highspeed lines, and relegate those who do not pay up to the slower transmission lines. A Web site owned by a company who is a competitor could even be blocked entirely. Anyone who has sat frustrated at a computer screen waiting for a file to download knows what this means for the those Web site owners not willing to pay up: their sites and applications will run at a slower pace, thus turning away consumers. These Internet companies, e-mail services, and Web site owners will be relegated to the Information ``Dirt Road''--the Information Superhighway will be reserved for those companies who are willing to pay the toll. Worst of all, consumers and businesses who rely on these Internet services will be completely powerless, since it is beyond their control as to which Web site owners are willing to pay the fees. The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks are available for all users of the Internet. This legislation already enjoys support from a broad spectrum of groups who care about Internet freedom, such as the Consumer's Union, the Parent's Television Council, the Gun Owners of America, the American Library Association, and the Christian Coalition. Altogether over 140 organizations have backed our efforts to prevent discrimination the Internet. If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the world's last remaining frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming video, or online shopping, just to name a few? Consumers should decide which businesses succeed and which fail, not network providers. What has made the Internet such a remarkable success is the ability of consumers everywhere to use the connection they pay for to experience a world of their own choosing on their own terms. Earlier this month, the New York Times endorsed the legislation in an editorial when it called for ``a strong net neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.'' I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will preserve the open, unrestricted nature of the Internet. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Inouye, with whom I have worked closely to draft this bill. I also want to acknowledge Senator Wyden, who has introduced similar net neutrality legislation, for his leadership on this issue. Having risen from its humble beginnings as an obscure tool for a few tech-savvy enthusiasts, the Internet now stands as the epicenter of commerce today. An April 2006 Pew Internet study cites that 73 percent of adults in the U.S. now use the Internet, 45 percent of whom use it for making major financial decisions. Last year alone, over $1.7 trillion in transactions took place on the Internet, and today 725,000 small businesses use e-commerce giant eBay as a way to reach customers. Because anyone, anywhere, can communicate and transact business with virtually any corner of the globe with an Internet connection, the benefits of the Internet on small businesses--and on rural places like my home State of Maine--cannot be overstated. The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. Anyone can send an e- mail or set up a Web site at little or no cost, and the marketplace has picked winners and losers, rather than an arbitrary gatekeeper. When users log onto the Internet, they take a lot of things for granted. They assume that they will be able to access whatever Web site they want, when they want to--and if they have a broadband connection, they expect this to happen at a high speed, regardless of what Web site they choose. They also assume that they can use any feature they like, anytime they choose--watching online videos, searching for information, making purchases, and sending e-mails and instant messages. They assume that they can attach devices to make their online experience better-- things such as Web cameras, game controllers, or extra hard drives. What they are assuming is called ``net neutrality,'' the principle at the core of the Internet's DNA. The idea is that the Internet should be open and free, restricted by no one. Unfortunately, all this may change very soon if Congress does not take action. In August 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order removing virtually all regulation of Internet facilities that connect homes and businesses to the World Wide Web. Among the regulations lifted were the long-standing non-discrimination rules that required the owners of Internet facilities networks--in most cases cable and telephone companies--to allow delivery of all Internet content to the end user at the same speed, refraining from blocking any Web sites. These long-standing rules have enabled small businesses in Maine and across the country to have the same access to customers as giant corporations. Yet without the protections of the legislation we introduce today, those small businesses may be reduced to second-class citizen status on the Web. Telephone and cable companies supply broadband Internet service to 98 percent of Internet subscribers in this country. Recently, executives from several of the largest of these firms publicly indicated their intention to charge fees to Web site operators before giving them access to their highspeed lines, and relegate those who do not pay up to the slower transmission lines. A Web site owned by a company who is a competitor could even be blocked entirely. Anyone who has sat frustrated at a computer screen waiting for a file to download knows what this means for the those Web site owners not willing to pay up: their sites and applications will run at a slower pace, thus turning away consumers. These Internet companies, e-mail services, and Web site owners will be relegated to the Information ``Dirt Road''--the Information Superhighway will be reserved for those companies who are willing to pay the toll. Worst of all, consumers and businesses who rely on these Internet services will be completely powerless, since it is beyond their control as to which Web site owners are willing to pay the fees. The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks are available for all users of the Internet. This legislation already enjoys support from a broad spectrum of groups who care about Internet freedom, such as the Consumer's Union, the Parent's Television Council, the Gun Owners of America, the American Library Association, and the Christian Coalition. Altogether over 140 organizations have backed our efforts to prevent discrimination the Internet. If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the world's last remaining frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming video, or online shopping, just to name a few? Consumers should decide which businesses succeed and which fail, not network providers. What has made the Internet such a remarkable success is the ability of consumers everywhere to use the connection they pay for to experience a world of their own choosing on their own terms. Earlier this month, the New York Times endorsed the legislation in an editorial when it called for ``a strong net neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.'' I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Enzi for yielding the time as well as for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor, legislation that is so critical and vital to the future well- being of small businesses, I know in my State and across America. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I know firsthand that this crisis is real. It is an undue burden on entrepreneurs throughout this country, and it certainly didn't develop overnight. Now we have a solution at hand, if we are all willing to forge the consensus necessary to make it happen. This issue is all the more critical when you consider the fact that today nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured. That is an increase of over 4 million people since 2001. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our Nation's uninsured population, 60.6 percent either work for small business with fewer than 100 employees or are self-employed. There should be no doubt or question that the time has long since come to pass this legislation that will at once assist our small businesses in accessing affordable health insurance for their employees and their families while assuring more of those employees can actually have health insurance. For this past decade, health insurance premiums have exploded at double-digit percentage levels and far outpaced inflation and wage gains, and Congress has failed to act. Study after study has confirmed beyond a doubt that fewer and fewer small businesses are able to offer health insurance to their employees. Little has been done to alleviate the problem. Quite simply, it has been an abrogation of responsibility. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have held hearings on this question. Small business owners in Maine and across America have consistently and repeatedly begged Congress for relief. They need competition in the market. They need to be able to offer this to their own employees and their families. That is why I originally introduced the Small Business Health Fairness Act which would have allowed the creation of association health plans to offer uniform health plans across the country, allowing small businesses to leverage their purchasing power on a national basis. This week, for the first time, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Enzi in bringing this legislation to the floor from his committee, the full Senate will be trying to resolve many of the issues, many of the differences of positions and perspectives everybody has on this question. I thank the majority leader for making this legislation the key component of Health Week in the Senate. I also thank my friends on both sides of the political aisle, Senator Byrd, who has cosponsored my initiative originally, Senator Talent, who initiated this effort when he was chair of the Small Business Committee in the House, and the same is true for my predecessor, Senator Bond, when he was chair of the Small Business Committee, for helping to move this issue to the pivotal point where we are today. I also thank Senator Kerry as ranking member of the Small Business Committee because we also modified my original bill, worked on another consensus bill that would have been a modification based on regional association health plans. I thank him for his effort. Again, that was another attempt to bridge these efforts across the aisle. But I most especially recognize Senator Enzi's work and his commitment in moving this bill, holding the hearings, trying to reconcile the differences. This week is not about engaging in heated partisan debate to create issues for the upcoming election. What this should be all about is providing solutions to small businesses and America's uninsured for the much needed relief they certainly deserve. We are trying to do everything we can to resolve some of the issues. I know there are some concerns, as there were with my initial legislation and as there is with Chairman Enzi's bill now before the Senate. A couple of those issues are, of course, preemption of mandated benefits. I hope to be able to address that question with an amendment so, hopefully, we can reconcile some of the differences across party lines, across philosophical perspectives, so we can get the job done. There are some concerns about the changes in community ratings. I know that is a particular issue for my State as well. I understand the chairman will address that issue in his managers' amendment. What we are all here about today is what can we do to address the underlying concern that small businesses have across America. This is a summary of their foremost concern--increasing health insurance costs for themselves and for their employees and their families to the point, as I think we all recognize, small businesses are unable to offer this crucial benefit at a time when they need to be competitive with larger companies because they cannot afford, they simply cannot afford to provide health insurance. If they can afford it, it is catastrophic coverage, it is a $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 deductible at best that they are able to offer. That is why I introduced the initial association health plans, to give fairness to the market, especially to the small group markets such as the State of Maine. The State of Maine is a small group market and, guess what, there is no competition. No competition means higher prices. Higher prices means virtually no health insurance. That is why I offered the association health plan. That is why Chairman Enzi is doing what he is doing here today, to try to bridge the differences so we can move and advance this process forward because it is good for all of America. Small business is the engine that is driving the economy. Two-thirds of the job growth occurring in America today is emanating from small businesses. So it is important to ensure their well-being. By offering the mechanisms that are proposed in Chairman Enzi's legislation, the small business health insurance plan will help with uniformity as well. Because 50 States have 50 sets of administrative rules, regulations, and mandates, it is virtually impossible to have a uniform standard nationwide. This will allow small businesses to be basically on par with Fortune 500 companies and unions. After all, no one is ever complaining about Fortune 500 companies and unions' plans. In fact, they are the most generous in America. So if they are good for Fortune 500 companies, if they are good for unions, why can't they be good for small businesses? That is what it is all about. Now people say these associations will not design good plans. If you want to attract members to the plan, if you want people to join your plan, obviously you are going to ensure that you design these plans which will be the most attractive to the greatest number of people who join up in these associations. After all, it is in the interests of small businesses to have attractive plans for their employees because they have to compete with large employers to get good employees, to get skilled employees. If they don't have this crucial and vital benefit, they do not attract the kind of employees they need to make their business successful. That is what it is all about. I hope we can reconcile our differences through the amendment process, with what I hope to offer as amendments and what others will offer, that can lead us to our goal of addressing the fundamental question for small businesses in America that ultimately will help mitigate the problem of the uninsured that is ever growing in America as well. As we engage in this debate this week, in the end I hope we can come to a conclusion with a reasonable compromise that will become law. That is what it is all about. I know people have differences of opinion. But I don't think there ought to be a difference of opinion in the final analysis when we address all the issues--the ones that Chairman Enzi addressed to bridge the gap, the ones that my amendment will do, and others might do--which will ultimately get us to the point of beginning to resolve this crisis. The fact remains that we are seeing fewer and fewer small employers that are providing health insurance for their employees. If you look at this chart, only 47 percent of the smallest businesses in America--those with three to nine workers--offer health insurance. It is on a declining trend--down to 52 percent, and down to 58 percent in 2002--in sharp contrast to the 98 percent of larger businesses with 200 or more workers that are offering health insurance as a benefit. For small businesses, things are trending in the wrong direction. Then you look at the small group marketplaces in States such as Maine, which is what this essentially is all about. As we learned from the Government Accountability Office study that Senator Talent and I requested, Blue Cross-Blue Shield is actually consolidating their market share in a number of States across the country. In fact, 44 percent are in group markets. I hope we can begin to reconcile these differences and do what I think this Congress can do for the first time that we have had the opportunity to do. Let us not deny small businesses and their employees this one chance to do it. Time has long since passed for action.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time will that be?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his clarification and his support of small business contracting.