Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Senator Collins from Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. SNOWE. Just to make a few final points because, again, there has been a lot of misunderstanding, mischaracterizations, misinterpretations of the facts. The facts are, this program has not grown. That is indisputable. Look at this chart and see where we are. The level of funding for LIHEAP is equivalent to 1983 buying power, when oil per barrel costs were at $29. Today it is more than $60. The buying power for any household that depends on low-income fuel assistance has decreased from 50 percent in 2001 down to 19.5 percent. Look at the cost of home heating oil. That is where we are today. I go unchallenged when it comes to matching fiscal responsibility. There are a number of issues I have offered in the Senate to accomplish that. That has not occurred. I agree we have to do much more. But the fact is, this $1 billion was included in the Deficit Reduction Act that most Members voted for in this Senate last year that included this funding and included this formula. Those are the facts. The $1 billion and the formula were already included in the Deficit Reduction Act. This is not increasing spending. It is budget neutral. It is the same funding formula that everyone agreed to that would help both cold weather and warm weather States. That is indisputable. I hope at least we could debate the true and accurate facts. That is what this is all about. This is a national issue. It is not a regional issue, it is a national issue. It is a national crisis. I hope the Senate will vote to waive the budget point of order so we can provide the $1 billion that was allocated in 2007 and advance it to 2006.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 10 minutes on each side so we can make sure that everyone who wants to speak has a chance to speak on this issue.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield to my colleague, Senator Collins, 2 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Connecticut.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable points of order. I move to waive the point of order under the applicable provisions of the rules and statutes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to reclaim my time because I don't think we ought to debate the question here today. I don't think there is any question about that. But in the meantime, we have to address an emergency, and that emergency exists in my State and many other States across the country, including the Senator's State. I think it is a matter of fairness and it is a matter of equity and it is a matter of balance. I think indisputable about why we need this legislation and why we need this funding now. I hope Members of the Senate will recognize that. This is fairly distributed for warm and cold weather States. I hope we can increase the supply. But right now we have to deal with the emergency that is presented in my State and many other States across the country. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, how much time remains?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to do the right thing and to oppose this budget point of order brought up against this legislation that will provide emergency funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I thank the majority leader for his assistance in advancing this legislation. It is the culmination of his considerable efforts over the last few months to bring forward this legislation. I thank the minority leader as well for recognizing the importance and vitality of this issue, and promoting this amendment forward as well. Mr. President, I know you are sitting in the chair, but you have been one of the leaders on this issue, trying to get additional commitment for funding for low-income fuel assistance, particularly for this winter, along with my colleague, Senator Collins of Maine. This legislation addresses a nationwide crisis by bipartisan consensus and fiscal responsibility. This legislation shifts the fiscal year for LIHEAP funding into the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was already signed into law, from 2007 to 2006. This will provide an additional $1 billion for all those Americans who simply cannot wait any longer for relief from home heating fuel costs that have skyrocketed over last year's heating bill. The vote we will be taking this afternoon is on the budget point of order against this bill. I would like to elaborate on why this legislation is absolutely vital to increasing the funding for low- income fuel assistance for all parts of the country that depend upon this program. There has been a lot of misinformation with respect to exactly what this bill is all about. First of all, it is budget neutral. Don't take my word for it; it is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office. All of the funds under this bill have already been appropriated and accounted for within the budget. All this measure will do is shift the funds from fiscal year 2007 to 2006. There is no additional, there is no new spending. This approach is not only fiscally sound and budget neutral, but, critically, it will allow States the flexibility to allocate funds to the residents who are struggling to pay for energy bills this year. The White House and our Senate leadership recognize this is the fiscally responsible solution to resolve this crisis. I know some have said essentially we believe the LIHEAP program should be funded through contingency measures such as this legislation. That is what this legislation does, it utilizes the existing formula. It is not only cold weather States but also warm weather States that will benefit under this legislation. I regret some of the misinformation that has been circulated with respect to LIHEAP as to who will benefit, which States will benefit under this legislation. I submit that in a year of high energy costs-- and it has been a year of high energy costs, anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent--it has devastated our State of Maine, Minnesota, and all parts of the country that have had to rely on home heating oil or natural gas or whatever the alternative. But the fact remains, the prices have increased 30 percent to 50 percent over last year's, and last year's prices went up 20 percent to 30 percent. That factor is not in dispute. The additional factor is that we are using the same distribution formula. I believe that needs to be understood because I have seen some of the papers distributed as to which States will benefit. It is totally inaccurate. Nothing has changed with respect to that formula. On the issues that are important to know about this increase in LIHEAP funding, No. 1, it is budget neutral; No. 2, it will not increase spending; and No. 3, the distribution formula remains the same. I regret that we have seen so much misinformation and mischaracterization with respect to the funding formula under this legislation. Finally, we have heard: Well, it is a mild winter. I would like you to come to Maine, if you think it is a mild winter, and you ask all those people about the 30 percent to 50 percent increases. The current low-income fuel assistance program has not had an increase in real dollar terms since 1983. I happened to be in the House of Representatives when we created this program. It has not increased in real terms. If anything, it has been reduced. I regret that we have reached this point in time with respect to this vital program that so many low-income individuals depend upon who can barely make ends meet given the extent of the costs this winter with respect to home heating oil. We are now talking about a program that has not increased in net terms since 1983, when oil was $29 a barrel. Today it is more than $60 a barrel. Eighty-four percent of the people qualified for LIHEAP funds-- and 80 percent of my State--are dependent upon home heating oil. It is a crushing financial burden. Let there be no mistake about the fact that this program is vital. It is significant. It is essential to so many of the families in my State and across the country. The urgency of this legislation has escalated to an emergency. Last year, Americans struggled because of the high cost of energy. This year, they continue to struggle. We know the personal terms in which people have been devastated by the increased costs of energy. I hope the Senate would waive the budget point of order because this amendment, this legislation, is budget neutral, and it does depend upon the existing distribution formula. Both cold weather States and warm weather States stand to benefit. There has also been a mischaracterization and misinterpretation about the distribution of this funding under this legislation. In fact, it was the agreement that we reached before Christmas. That was essentially the agreement we reached before Christmas. The very distribution formula we agreed to, the one which has been the status quo, the one which we agreed to with those who represent warm weather States, is exactly what this legislation before us is all about. Nothing has changed. I deeply regret to see what has been distributed and circulated that would suggest otherwise because it simply is not true. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will improve college access by creating a framework to ensure that high school graduates amass the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in college--the College Pathway Act. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I have been working hand-in-hand to identify the degree to which high school students are unsuccessfully prepared for college and develop practical solutions to this issue. The bill we introduce today is the product of our combined efforts. Today, 97 percent of secondary school students expect to attend college, however, high school students are not prepared academically for the rigors of college coursework. Although States around the country have developed high school standards, there is often a disconnect that exists between high school standards and college expectations. Today, 53 percent of post-secondary students require remedial English or mathematics. Graduation rates for those requiring remedial classes are less then 40 percent. And that is why Senator Leiberman and I are working together in response to the concerns that too many students start college without the proper tools. Part of the problem is that colleges and high schools generally have separate statewide governing boards for their pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education systems. The College Pathway Act awards grants enabling States the opportunity of a voluntary establishment of pre-kindergarten through the 16th grade commissions in States, consisting of representatives of the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education communities, the governor's office, appropriate State legislators and members of the business community. These partnerships within the commission would promote academic success in postsecondary education, increase the percentage of academically prepared low-income and minority students, and decrease the percentage of college students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to math, science and engineering. This commission offers a framework for aligning lower, middle and high school curriculum and assessment standards with post-secondary expectations. Students who are properly prepared before entering college are far more likely to succeed in college. Indeed, many States across the Nation are looking to the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade concept to improve alignment. Federal funding for establishment of pre-kindergarten through 12th grade commissions would allow States to implement or expand their current programs. In addition, many States are attempting to improve data collection systems in order to better evaluate those programs that lead to success. Our bill would also offer support to those States which voluntarily seek to enhance and improve the effectiveness of their data systems. We believe that by promoting coordination of grades pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, States will better align education systems helping to ensure that all students are prepared to successfully engage in and complete post-secondary level coursework. Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education. We should pursue policies that will prepare students to begin their college career. I believe that education is the great equalizer in our society that gives every citizen of our Nation the same opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. That's why I will continue to target access to higher education for America's students. The College Pathway Act will help to further this goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will improve college access by creating a framework to ensure that high school graduates amass the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in college--the College Pathway Act. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I have been working hand-in-hand to identify the degree to which high school students are unsuccessfully prepared for college and develop practical solutions to this issue. The bill we introduce today is the product of our combined efforts. Today, 97 percent of secondary school students expect to attend college, however, high school students are not prepared academically for the rigors of college coursework. Although States around the country have developed high school standards, there is often a disconnect that exists between high school standards and college expectations. Today, 53 percent of post-secondary students require remedial English or mathematics. Graduation rates for those requiring remedial classes are less then 40 percent. And that is why Senator Leiberman and I are working together in response to the concerns that too many students start college without the proper tools. Part of the problem is that colleges and high schools generally have separate statewide governing boards for their pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education systems. The College Pathway Act awards grants enabling States the opportunity of a voluntary establishment of pre-kindergarten through the 16th grade commissions in States, consisting of representatives of the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education communities, the governor's office, appropriate State legislators and members of the business community. These partnerships within the commission would promote academic success in postsecondary education, increase the percentage of academically prepared low-income and minority students, and decrease the percentage of college students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to math, science and engineering. This commission offers a framework for aligning lower, middle and high school curriculum and assessment standards with post-secondary expectations. Students who are properly prepared before entering college are far more likely to succeed in college. Indeed, many States across the Nation are looking to the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade concept to improve alignment. Federal funding for establishment of pre-kindergarten through 12th grade commissions would allow States to implement or expand their current programs. In addition, many States are attempting to improve data collection systems in order to better evaluate those programs that lead to success. Our bill would also offer support to those States which voluntarily seek to enhance and improve the effectiveness of their data systems. We believe that by promoting coordination of grades pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, States will better align education systems helping to ensure that all students are prepared to successfully engage in and complete post-secondary level coursework. Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education. We should pursue policies that will prepare students to begin their college career. I believe that education is the great equalizer in our society that gives every citizen of our Nation the same opportunity to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century. That's why I will continue to target access to higher education for America's students. The College Pathway Act will help to further this goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the wishes to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship will hold a public hearing to consider, ``The Nomination of Eric Thorson to be the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration'' on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 2 p.m., in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building. The Chair urges every member to attend.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help struggling communities, like Aroostook County in my home State of Maine, take full advantage of the special tax incentives for creating economic growth and community revitalization in empowerment zones. The bill enables those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as empowerment zones. I believe all empowerment zone communities need 15 years to reverse the decades of decline that originally impacted their economies. I have long supported empowerment zone incentives, and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal. In Maine, I have seen first hand empowerment zones' ability to revitalize faltering communities, with new jobs, and the creation of the economic activity needed for vibrant and strong cities and towns. Empowerment zones are vital to the health of rural Maine. The story of Aroostook County demonstrates how decades of decline can force people to leave rural areas in order to find better, more stable, employment opportunities. Since the 1960s, difficult economic circumstances have caused a continuous decline in Aroostook County's population. In 1994, Loring Air Force Base closed, the major employer in Aroostook County at the time, further decimating the area's already struggling economic base and population. The Pentagon wrote, in their assessment of closure at Loring that, ``closing Loring Air Force Base would result in a population loss of approximately 22,000 persons, (the) direct and indirect employment loss of nearly 9,900 jobs, and regional income loss of just over 92 million dollars.'' Today, over 11 years after the Air Force left Aroostook County, the population hovers near a sparse 73,000 people with 14 percent of these households still living in poverty. In 1994, Congress designated the first empowerment zones setting 2009, a 15-year timeframe, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of empowerment zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002; granting communities like Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, as little as 7 years to use tax incentives to reverse decades of decline and economic neglect. Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for empowerment zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, like Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for empowerment zone status until 2002 are in need of the long-term 15-year commitment in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty. Businesses operating within empowerment zones receive a 20-percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses, and industries, to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in empowerment zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable, and likely. Empowerment zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners. To qualify for empowerment zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships between private businesses, nonprofits, State, local, and Federal Government agencies, to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blueprint to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects focus on building needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry. In 2002, Aroostook County was designated an empowerment zone based on population loss, one of only two empowerment zones designated because of population decline. The county formed the Aroostook Partnership for Progress to spearhead their empowerment zone strategy, initiatives, and projects. Since its formation, the Partnership for Progress has steadfastly dedicated their time and resources to create a projected 1,500 new jobs and negotiated over $1.2 million worth of investments into Aroostook County. These numbers indicate the ability of empowerment zone incentives to drive investment and strengthen local businesses in the area. Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the empowerment zone, are making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine can not be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry, and other projects create greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic decline they will need more than 9 years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III empowerment zone communities, like Aroostook, who need the maximum order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of making a long- term commitment to communities using empowerment zone incentives to work their way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their States, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help struggling communities, like Aroostook County in my home State of Maine, take full advantage of the special tax incentives for creating economic growth and community revitalization in empowerment zones. The bill enables those economically depressed communities, already taking advantage of these incentives, to secure the full 15 years of targeted growth originally granted to the areas first designated as empowerment zones. I believe all empowerment zone communities need 15 years to reverse the decades of decline that originally impacted their economies. I have long supported empowerment zone incentives, and I believe that these targeted tax incentives provide struggling communities the best chance for sustained, long lasting economic renewal. In Maine, I have seen first hand empowerment zones' ability to revitalize faltering communities, with new jobs, and the creation of the economic activity needed for vibrant and strong cities and towns. Empowerment zones are vital to the health of rural Maine. The story of Aroostook County demonstrates how decades of decline can force people to leave rural areas in order to find better, more stable, employment opportunities. Since the 1960s, difficult economic circumstances have caused a continuous decline in Aroostook County's population. In 1994, Loring Air Force Base closed, the major employer in Aroostook County at the time, further decimating the area's already struggling economic base and population. The Pentagon wrote, in their assessment of closure at Loring that, ``closing Loring Air Force Base would result in a population loss of approximately 22,000 persons, (the) direct and indirect employment loss of nearly 9,900 jobs, and regional income loss of just over 92 million dollars.'' Today, over 11 years after the Air Force left Aroostook County, the population hovers near a sparse 73,000 people with 14 percent of these households still living in poverty. In 1994, Congress designated the first empowerment zones setting 2009, a 15-year timeframe, as the date that these tax incentives would expire. The 2009 expiration date of empowerment zone status was held firm for Round II communities designated in 1997, and the Round III communities designated in 2002; granting communities like Aroostook County, which was designated in 2002, as little as 7 years to use tax incentives to reverse decades of decline and economic neglect. Unfortunately, Aroostook's economic problems will not be fixed within the 7 short years this area qualifies for empowerment zone tax incentives. Instead a long-term and lasting commitment of at least 15 years is necessary to help Aroostook communities work their way to stronger economic prosperity. Many communities, like Aroostook County, that were unable to qualify for empowerment zone status until 2002 are in need of the long-term 15-year commitment in which to address their stubborn causes of poverty. Businesses operating within empowerment zones receive a 20-percent wage credit for the first $15,000 they pay in wages to local residents. Other tax incentives encourage businesses, and industries, to further commit to these communities. Companies with businesses in empowerment zones are eligible for an additional $35,000 worth of 179 business expensing--making these long-term business obligations more attractive, affordable, and likely. Empowerment zones are also eligible for expanded tax exempt financing for building the infrastructure communities need to attract long-term developers and business partners. To qualify for empowerment zone status, communities develop comprehensive strategic plans that depend on these tax incentives to help them transform their economies. Each community's plan focuses on establishing long-term partnerships between private businesses, nonprofits, State, local, and Federal Government agencies, to help develop the local economy. Together these parties use the community's strategic blueprint to implement interconnected projects that address the factors creating the area's economic sickness. These types of projects focus on building needed business and industrial infrastructure, developing an educated workforce and diversifying local economies away from a reliance on one employer or industry. In 2002, Aroostook County was designated an empowerment zone based on population loss, one of only two empowerment zones designated because of population decline. The county formed the Aroostook Partnership for Progress to spearhead their empowerment zone strategy, initiatives, and projects. Since its formation, the Partnership for Progress has steadfastly dedicated their time and resources to create a projected 1,500 new jobs and negotiated over $1.2 million worth of investments into Aroostook County. These numbers indicate the ability of empowerment zone incentives to drive investment and strengthen local businesses in the area. Through the Aroostook Partnership for Progress, and the businesses working in the empowerment zone, are making significant progress--the factors causing poverty in this rural part of Maine can not be eradicated quickly. Aroostook County's strategic plan will take time to implement as infrastructure, industry, and other projects create greater economic capabilities and diversification. Though Aroostook County is working valiantly to overcome the factors causing their economic decline they will need more than 9 years to overcome 40 years of difficulties. I know that there are many other struggling Round II and Round III empowerment zone communities, like Aroostook, who need the maximum order to reverse the poverty and underdevelopment also plaguing those areas. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of making a long- term commitment to communities using empowerment zone incentives to work their way out of long-term poverty. I hope that each Senator will support the communities in their States, currently undertaking the painful process of economic transformation, by supporting passage of this economic development bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that allows small businesses to expense more of their equipment and business assets, which will create incentives to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. Small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I believe this bill strengthens their ability to lead the way. I am pleased to join my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott, as we work to move this important initiative for small businesses from legislation to law. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I drafted this bill in response to the repeated requests from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation to allow them to expense more of their investments like the purchase of essential new equipment. The bill modifies the Internal Revenue Code and would double the amount a small business can expense from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent as President Bush also proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating 75 percent of net new jobs and contributing 51 percent of private-sector output, their size is the only `small' aspect about them. By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000 in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. This legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work with the President to enact this investment incentive into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that allows small businesses to expense more of their equipment and business assets, which will create incentives to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. Small businesses are the engine that drives our Nation's economy and I believe this bill strengthens their ability to lead the way. I am pleased to join my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott, as we work to move this important initiative for small businesses from legislation to law. As the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I drafted this bill in response to the repeated requests from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation to allow them to expense more of their investments like the purchase of essential new equipment. The bill modifies the Internal Revenue Code and would double the amount a small business can expense from $100,000 to $200,000, and make the provision permanent as President Bush also proposed this change in his fiscal year 2007 tax proposals. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating 75 percent of net new jobs and contributing 51 percent of private-sector output, their size is the only `small' aspect about them. By doubling and making permanent the current expensing limit and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with complex and confusing depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased to $800,000 in new assets purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. This legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work with the President to enact this investment incentive into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a significant and exciting article that appeared in the Wednesday, January 25, 2006, edition of The New York Times entitled ``Luring Business Developers Into Low-Income Areas,'' as written by Ms. Lisa Chamberlain. I believe my colleagues will be especially interested in this article because it explains how the new markets tax credit, NMTC, can create new jobs, and economic development, in the destitute rural and urban areas. I know that sincere Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize the credit's ability to transform communities and break the poverty cycle. From the beginning, the credit's power to help communities overcome poverty has garnered strong bipartisan support for the measure. The new markets tax credit is unique among Federal antipoverty initiatives. Its innovative approach uses the Tax Code to encourage long-term capital investments in downtrodden communities identified by the census as historically plagued by high unemployment, low levels of private investment, and stifling poverty rates. The credit provides a modest incentive--a 39-percent credit against Federal taxes over a 7-year period--to lure new private investments to struggling communities. For this credit, developers agree to invest in projects that benefit the community and undertake measures, like charging lower rents, to encourage these projects' success. Over the next 10 years, private investors will dedicate over $15 billion in new money to poor urban and rural areas in order to revitalize, develop, and ultimately transform these impoverished, low- income communities. The program's rate of return, as measured by increased economic development and lower poverty rates, easily justifies its modest costs to the Treasury of $4.5 billion over 10 years. The credit's greatest innovation is its ability to create partnerships between the public and private sector that encourage and cultivate investments within a diverse range of businesses and organizations. These investments propel growth by providing funding for small business startups, enable the expansion of manufacturing facilities, and the building of retail, mixed use, commercial and housing developments. The investments also provide communities with important services by creating childcare centers, employment training facilities, charter schools, and community health care centers. I have seen the credit's ability to reenergize and save local economies in my home State of Maine. During the 1990s, Maine's Katahdin Forest region fell on hard times. One of the areas largest employers, the Great Northern Paper Company, struggled against depressed global paper prices and low financial returns associated with owning trees. Combined, these factors made it extremely difficult to raise the capital necessary to make the mill improvements needed to keep the company competitive and retain jobs. Because of a $31.5 million NMTC investment made by Coastal Enterprises, a community development corporation based in Wiscasset, ME, two of Great Northern Paper Company's pulp and paper mills in the Katahdin Forest area were able to stay in business and modernize. This crucial investment resulted in the direct employment of 650 people. The credit also made it possible for Coastal Enterprises to partner with The Nature Conservancy in a ground breaking arrangement to promote the twin goals of environmental protection and economic development. The credit enabled the Nature Conservancy to purchase 41,000 acres, of Great Northern Paper Company's 341,000-acre land base, that contain critical lake and stream watershed lands. As part of this deal, Great Northern Paper Company agreed to place a perpetual conservation easement on 200,000 of the remaining 300,000 acres they retained. These projects will benefit Maine's environment, and economy, for years to come. These Maine examples represent a few of the innovative and revolutionary ways the new markets tax credit is being used nationwide to address local economic troubles. These projects ranges from smaller loans to help local business owners become more self-sufficient by purchasing their office space to larger ventures like developing a new aircraft repair facility. Additionally, projects also work to address community deficiencies like the building of a much needed shopping center to transform a rundown, major transit stop. Such investments enable companies located in low-income communities to add jobs, provide more people with needed goods and services, and increase the strength of their local tax base and economies. Competition among applicants for access to the new markets tax credit program is spurring the private sector to reach beyond the minimum requirements of the law in order to secure a tax credit allotment. According to the results of a May 2005 survey conducted by the New Markets Tax Credit Coalition, investors are targeting communities to develop projects with higher poverty and unemployment rates than the law requires. These private investors are also directing capital into low income areas faster rate than required by law. The credit enables the public and private sectors to work together in a way that is truly transforming the Nation's most impoverished communities. Through these partnerships, investors are now deploying their capital in areas where before they never would have invested because the great risks kept flexible capital from being conventionally available in these depressed areas. The credit is seen as one of the most hopeful ways to address the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and Rita on the Gulf States. We in Congress overwhelmingly recognized and supported the power of the credit by dedicating $1 billion dollars in additional funding to projects along the gulf coast financed by the NMTC. Many broken Gulf State communities desperately wait for the rebuilding, and renovation, projects the credit will provide. As a bipartisan effort to continue the credit's great successes, I am pleased to join my colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in sponsoring S. 1800, the New Markets Tax Credit Reauthorization Act. A companion bill, H.R. 3987, has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Lewis of Kentucky. Our legislation extends the new markets tax credit through 2012. Under current law, the credit, which was enacted in December 2000 as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, will expire on December 31, 2007. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this innovative and necessary legislation. In addition to our legislation, the Senate version of the tax reconciliation measure, S. 2020, includes a 1-year extension of the new markets tax credit through 2008. I know that my respected colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, support the extension of this important bipartisan provision because of its impressive results fighting entrenched poverty and unemployment. I urge my colleagues to strongly support keeping this provision in the final version of the tax bill. The new markets tax credit is able to improve the physical infrastructure of low-income communities as well as the lives of its residents by harnessing the combined talents of the public and private sectors to create jobs, foster entrepreneurialism, construct facilities, conserve the environment, and even promote greater access to health care and education. I hope my colleagues will join me assuring that the new markets tax credit program remains strong for the future. I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Chamberlain's entire article be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that this letter, showing the support of over 240 representatives of community development corporations and financial institutions for S. 1800, be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted--Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy. The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas. As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment. So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs. Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed. This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators. So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit. It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance. I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here. I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted--Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy. The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas. As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment. So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs. Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed. This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators. So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit. It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance. I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here. I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted-- Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy. The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas. As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment. So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs. Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed. This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators. So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit. It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance. I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here. I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lautenberg today to introduce urgent legislation to assist the many States which have stepped forward to provide an essential safety net to our Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Our States have acted as ``payers of last resort''--as beneficiaries faced unaffordable costs when errors in implementing their coverage denied them access to vital medications. The Medicare State Reimbursement Act will reimburse our States for their costs in assuring that millions receive their medications. So many of our colleagues have recognized the crisis which was averted-- Senators Coleman, Schumer, DeWine, Feinstein, Collins, Jeffords and many more have joined us in this bipartisan effort to support the States in the vital role they have played in countering a deficit of action by the Federal bureaucracy. The introduction of the prescription drug benefit is a landmark step in the progress of Medicare. This benefit will save the average senior about $1,000 per year. This is the relief that millions have needed for so long. It must eliminate the terrible choices so many have had to make between vital medications and the other essentials of life--not create new dilemmas. As we worked to ensure a prescription drug benefit, many of us worked hard to assure special help to those with the most limited resources. We enacted a benefit which provided additional help for those on limited incomes, including millions who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid--our ``dual eligibles''. It was essential that these individuals would see uninterrupted coverage of their essential medications. So we needed to ensure each would be enrolled in a drug plan. To do this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, randomly assigned each of them to a plan. In a program based on competition--based on choices--plans are going to differ. To find the best plan, one must make an educated choice, not a random assignment. So the result of random assignment was predictable. Many beneficiaries wound up in plans which did not cover their drugs. My State of Maine immediately stepped forward to work to assure that every beneficiary was matched with the plan which best met their needs. As plans were reviewed, my State found a third of those reviewed--15,000 beneficiaries--were not enrolled in the most appropriate drug plan. Getting each into the plan that met their medication requirements was essential to meeting their needs. Despite these best efforts to improve the situation, some beneficiaries were not in a plan at all, while others were in plans which seemed not to understand that every beneficiary was to be allowed a refill of their existing medications. So as beneficiaries came to their local pharmacies to get prescription refills, many faced great obstacles in getting the drugs they needed. We had heard of some problems in validating enrollment eligibility, but at year end, these just became worse, and we found beneficiaries were not properly enrolled, plans were not giving the proper transition refills, and co- payments charged were often excessive. As individual faced co-payments of $100 or more--instead of the $5 or less they should have been charged--many simply couldn't afford their medications. Thankfully, our States have stepped in to make sure low income seniors received their medications. In Maine alone, approximately $5 million in assistance has been given to ensure medications are dispensed. This drug benefit must increase access, not make it more difficult. I am appalled, that with all the technology we have, so many have faced such difficulties in the implementation of this benefit. I salute the forbearance of our pharmacies, as they strived to meet essential needs, and the efforts of my State and others which have assured that these most vulnerable Americans not suffer from the failures of either the Federal bureaucracy or the plan administrators. So what this legislation does is simple. It authorizes CMS to reimburse the States their costs which they paid for providing medications to those who did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. It does this by a simple mechanism: an adjustment in the ``claw back'' payments which States make as their contribution for their dual eligibles. Accordingly, CMS is authorized to collect those funds from those who were obligated to serve our beneficiaries--the drug plans and managed care plans which deliver the drug benefit. It has been confirmed that CMS does not presently have this authority, and it simply is not acceptable to propose that CMS will simply help the States collect from the plans. It was CMS which approved the plans, and it is CMS which administers Part D. They are in the best position to assure plan compliance. I look forward to prompt consideration of this legislation, and look forward to continuing work with my colleagues to assure that the Medicare drug benefit meets the needs of all our beneficiaries, and that none of our most vulnerable citizens should suffer from such administrative failures as we have seen here. I call on my colleagues to join us in assuring our States are justly compensated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Drug Benefit Protections Act of 2005 with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson. Our bill provides additional protections for Medicare beneficiaries enrolling in the new Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, protections which we believe are essential. Our bill extends the initial enrollment period for the new benefit until the end of 2006, provides more flexibility for beneficiaries to change plans, and adds crucial protections for those enrolled in a plan. We are now in the midst of the rollout of the new Medicare drug benefit, and, as of November 15, seniors and individuals with disabilities on Medicare have begun enrolling in various plans. Unfortunately, many seniors are confused and angry, frustrated and concerned that they do not have adequate information about the plans being offered. Seniors may ultimately decide not to enroll in a plan if they do not have enough expert assistance--readily available and accessible--to help them choose an appropriate plan. To make matters worse, many say the information available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the agency overseeing the plan, is either not helpful or simply overwhelming. Beneficiaries are worried they could make a poor choice in selecting a plan and that, once enrolled, the drugs offered by the plan they choose may not be the drugs they need. We must assure them that they will not be saddled with monthly premiums for plans which, in the end, do not adequately cover their prescription drug needs. Our bill would address these concerns in several ways. The bill includes two provisions from Senator Nelson's bill, the Medicare Informed Choice Act of 2005, which give beneficiaries additional protection. The bill extends the initial six-month period for enrolling in a plan from May 15, 2006, to December 31, 2006, thus delaying late enrollment penalties until 2007 and giving beneficiaries the rest of this year and all of next year to decide whether to enroll in a plan. Once beneficiaries have enrolled in a plan, the bill provides a one- time opportunity during 2006 to change to another plan without penalty, should they wish to do so. The Medicare Drug Benefit Protections Act includes additional safeguards, as well. Seniors are getting misinformation from the CMS website, especially in regard to the cost of drugs being offered by certain plans. Seniors in my home State of Maine have experienced serious problems with inaccurate drug pricing information being provided by the CMS website devoted to the new Medicare Part D plans, www.medicare.gov. In one instance, the CMS website quoted one price for a senior's drug costs for 2006 but the plan itself quoted a cost of approximately $2,000 more than the CMS website. Under our bill, beneficiaries could change plans without penalty if they relied on misinformation from CMS to their detriment. Beneficiaries would also be allowed to change plans without penalty should their circumstances change significantly, due to medical reasons, for example. Beneficiaries who meet these criteria would have an extended period of time to change plans, a minimum of four months rather than the current 90 days. The bill would also extend the annual open season, as of 2007, from November 15th through December 31st, to a full two months, from November 1st through December 31st, in order to allow all beneficiaries more time outside the busy and travel-filled holiday season to study and compare plans should they wish to make a change. Finally, our bill authorizes $25 million in funding for grants to States, non-profit organizations, and other entities to conduct additional education and outreach efforts on the drug benefit during fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Our goal is to ensure that beneficiaries have sufficient time, comfort, and peace of mind to understand the new drug benefit and enroll in a plan well-suited to their needs so they can derive the much-needed assistance with their prescription drugs offered by these plans. We must provide flexibility, safeguards, and outreach efforts beyond what currently exists to reduce the anxiety and frustration that too many seniors are experiencing today. The new Medicare drug benefit is the first comprehensive outpatient prescription drug benefit in the 40-year history of Medicare. The benefit is not perfect by any means, but rather a beginning. I will continue working to improve this benefit so that it will truly deliver the assistance that our seniors so desperately need and deserve to have.