Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to introduce legislation to encourage the deployment of next generation wireless services in rural areas. Cell phones have become a vital part of so many lives. Today, there are over 194 million wireless subscribers in the United States--a subscribership that continues to grow. I want to be sure we foster an environment where this technology and future wireless technologies can flourish. Along with mobility, convenience and safety, cell phones today also have benefits of information access and entertainment. While wireless phones have been rapidly adopted by the general public, wireless service is far from being without flaws. I myself become frustrated while home in Maine when I cannot get cell phone and blackberry service. Something must be done in order to improve the wireless services that so many people rely on. Wireless services, such as cell phones, wireless handheld devices and some Internet services utilize frequencies on the radio spectrum to transfer voice and data from one user to another. It is the job of the service provider to turn these airwaves into the valuable services that consumers demand. The quality of service in a given place depends on how much investment the service provider has put into infrastructure. More urban locations tend to have better service because the return on investment is much higher due to the concentration of customers. This does not mean that rural areas are left without service. Viable business models exist that can sustain service in these more remote locations. Oftentimes smaller, local wireless companies can serve these areas better than nationwide service providers. One of the greatest barriers to entry in the wireless industry is acquiring a spectrum license in which a service can be operated. Companies bid up to billions of dollars for rights to one of Nation's most important resources. The digital television transition will soon release new spectrum into the marketplace. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission is slated to auction off the spectrum in licenses that cover large geographic areas. While this may be the preferred size for national wireless carriers, smaller companies will be unable to compete in the bidding process. The bill I introduce today aims to address this problem by directing the Federal Communications Commission to reevaluate its current bandplan for the 700 MHz spectrum that will be auctioned as a result of the digital television transition. In this reevaluation, the FCC must divide some of the frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so that local and regional wireless companies can have an opportunity to compete in the bidding process. The proper balance of large and small licenses will encourage the deployment of advanced services throughout all parts of the United States. This bill is not meant to circumvent the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission. It merely directs the FCC to use its expertise to develop a plan that will benefit the entire nation. Rural America deserves the same benefits of wireless technologies that are available in urban areas. This Act gives those best able to serve remote areas the tools needed to deploy services.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to be the next Chief Justice of the United States of America. After a careful and considered review of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his overall record, and a personal meeting with Judge Roberts in July, I have concluded that Judge John Roberts should be confirmed as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. I first want to express my deepest gratitude to my good friend and colleague, Senator Specter, who--as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--was extraordinary in leading the nomination process to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in 11 years, the longest such interval since the administration of President James Monroe 181 years ago. Together with Ranking Member Leahy, Senator Specter ensured a thorough, rigorous, and civil examination of the individual who now comes before the full Senate for a confirmation vote. I have not arrived at my decision lightly. It has been said that, of all the entities in government, the Supreme Court is the most closely identified with the Constitution and that no other branch or agency has as great an opportunity to speak directly to the rational and moral side of American character, to bring the power and moral authority of government to bear directly upon the citizenry. The Supreme Court passes final, legal judgment on many of the most profound social issues of our time. The Court is uniquely designed to accept only those cases that present a substantial and compelling question of Federal law, cases for which the Court's ultimate resolution will not be applied merely to a single, isolated dispute but, rather, will guide legislatures, executives, and all other courts in their broader development and interpretation of law and policy. In the end, ours is a government of both liberty and order, State and Federal authority, and checks and balances. The remarkable challenge of calibrating these fundamental balance points is entrusted, ultimately, to the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. To help meet the extraordinary challenges of this role, any nominee for the Court must have a powerful intellect, a principled understanding of the Court's role, and a sound commitment to judicial method. Moreover, the nominee for Chief Justice must also, among other leadership skills, engender collegiality and respect among all of the justices in order to facilitate the consensus of majority, command the respect of lower Federal courts, and faster cooperation with the States' highest courts. And the nominee must have a keen understanding of, and a disciplined respect for, the great and tremendous body of law that precedes them to warrant our consent. These are the threshold qualifications against which a person chosen by the President of the United States to serve as just the 17th Chief Justice of the United States must be measured. And all the more so when our Nation would undoubtedly bear the mark of the nominee for decades to come. Indeed, given the age of this particular nominee, it is not unreasonable to conclude that John Roberts may indeed serve longer than Chief Justice Marshall, who--with his 34 year tenure--still stands as our longest serving Chief Justice. If confirmed, Judge Roberts could well directly impact the Nation for a half century and for decades beyond. He would conceivably be entrusted with the ``care of the constitution'' for the next 40 years. It is against the backdrop of this reality that we also evaluate the record of Judge Roberts. And from a professional standpoint, it is clear that Judge John Roberts is one of the most highly-qualified individuals ever to be nominated for the Supreme Court, given his experience clerking for both the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and serving as counsel to a President, Attorney General and Solicitor General and given he is one of the most respected lawyers in the Nation who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and currently serves on the second highest court in the land with unanimous consent of this Chamber just a few years ago. So I applaud the President for selecting an individual who indisputably possesses the professional credentials to serve as Chief Justice. Concurrently, however, I believe there are four additional threshold qualifications that are critical to assess and evaluate the nominee. They are judicial temperament, integrity, methodology, and philosophy, and by their nature, are more challenging to measure. That is why I have arrived at my conclusions based on a thorough analysis of the complete and accumulated record accompanying Judge Roberts's nomination. With regard to the matter of judicial temperament, the members of the Judiciary Committee rightly and vigorously questioned the nominee on the tone and content of memoranda he authored as counsel to the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Because these memos presented opinions on such critical issues as civil rights, the right to privacy, and gender equity--including a 1984 memorandum regarding a letter I initiated as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives requesting the Administration not to intervene in a Federal court decision on the matter of women receiving lower pay because they often work in different jobs than men--I would have welcomed a more direct and forceful refutation of these documents. At the same time, Judge Roberts did testify that, ``Of course gender discrimination is a serious problem. It's a particular concern of mine . . . and always has been. I grew up with three sisters, all of whom work outside the home. I married a lawyer who works outside the home. I have a young daughter who I hope will have all of the opportunities available to her without regard to any gender discrimination . . .'' Further, when probed about memoranda on vital civil rights issues, Judge Roberts's stated to the committee that he believes Congress has the power to guarantee civil rights for all Americans. As an example, when he was asked, ``Do you believe that the Court had the power to address segregation of public schools on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?'', Roberts responded, ``yes''. And when questioned by Senator Kennedy, John Roberts agreed with the approach taken by Justice O'Connor in upholding an affirmative action program within a university's admissions policy. With regard to the right to privacy, in responding to concerns that he characterized this fundamental right as a ``so-called right to privacy'' in one Reagan administration memorandum, Judge Roberts testified that he does believe the Constitution guarantees such a right, that he was representing the administration's views in his memorandum, and he elaborated that this right emanates from at least five different sources--the first, third, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments--with the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments applying substantively as well as procedurally with respect to the right to privacy. To quote Judge Roberts: ``There's a right to privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. I think there is a right to privacy protected as part of the liberty guarantee in the due process clause. It's protected substantively.'' And specifically, he testified that he ``agree[d] with the Griswold Court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception'' and agreed with the later Eisenstadt decision that confirmed this right for unmarried couples as well. And finally in regard to the qualification embodied by judicial temperament, Judge Roberts offered the committee that some of the memoranda in question owed their content to a more youthful discretion some 25 years ago and that others merely reflected the views of his clients. In the end, whatever one takes from the universe of exchanges before the committee, I have concluded that the combination of this testimony with the judge's current reputation among lawyers and peers for discretion, modesty, and humility is the more accurate and contemporaneous measure of the man whose name stands before us today. And that conclusion is buttressed by an examination of another of the threshold qualifications--judicial methodology--which directly reflects a judge's commitment to the essential tenets of fairness and judicial integrity. In making this assessment, it is most instructive to consider the emphasis Judge Roberts has placed on judicial process in adjudicating cases. Rather than a ``top down'' approach wherein a decision is made and then the opinion is written to support that position, Judge Roberts has espoused a ``bottom up'' approach to decision-making--meaning that he will work through the specific facts and law of each case, and then arrive at a conclusion based on that analysis. As regards judicial integrity, I believe we can all agree it is absolutely essential that a judge be fair and open minded. Our citizens simply must have confidence that a judge who hears their legal claims does not do so with a closed mind. A judge must be truly committed to providing a full and fair day in court, and to arriving at decisions based on the facts and applicable law, not on any personal agenda or ulterior motive. For it is when the latter occurs that the public justifiably loses faith in the independence and fairness of our courts. I conclude that no such faith should be lost here with Judge Roberts. He is, by all accounts, a man of sound character whose integrity is widely respected by Democratic and Republican lawyers alike. To illustrate the essence of his judicial integrity, I recall during the course of our meeting in July that he indicated it was not uncommon for him to author an entire legal opinion before reaching the conclusion that the reasoning was wrong leading him to a different decision. He also spoke at length about his year as a law clerk to the late Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit, one of the most respected legal minds of our time, and a mentor and legal role model for Judge Roberts. He recounted how Judge Friendly was assigned the duty of writing an opinion for the three judge panel that heard a certain case. But once Judge Friendly began trying to write what was supposed to be the majority opinion, he realized that the reasoning behind the ruling simply was not sound. So after a number of failed attempts, Judge Friendly finally circulated a folder to each of this colleagues containing two opinions, with this note attached,--``The first opinion fulfills my obligation for writing the majority opinion. The second is my dissent in the case.'' Judge Friendly's ``dissent'' was so persuasive that it ultimately became the majority opinion. Again, this is reflected in Judge Robert's approach that is demonstrated in his methodical writings and decisions. While serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals between 2003 and 2005, John Roberts wrote opinions in 49 of 169 cases. And his final rulings in those 49 cases bear the very balance of his analysis. For example, he has ruled both for and against the government, both for and against corporations, and both for and against labor unions. Moreover, he has shown a capacity for consensus, writing separately in only 7 of the 169 cases before the Circuit Court. This record of collegiality would bode well for the current Supreme Court which can benefit from more consensus opinions. And of the 49 opinions Judge Roberts authored, only seven were appealed to the Supreme Court and all seven were denied. Again, all of these facts stand in testament to the meticulous methodology and the ``bottom up'' approach followed by Judge John Roberts. I recognize that some believe that the fourth and final threshold qualification I referenced--the matter of judicial philosophy--should be a factor for Presidents, but it should not be one the Senate considers in its confirmation process. I respectfully disagree. In my view, the Senate must also consider the nominee's sense of the limits and horizons of the great promises of our Constitution, and of the nominee's specific view of the proper role of the Supreme Court in deciding whether to take such cases and, if so, the method used to rule upon them. The inquiry into Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy assumed particular significance for all of us who value the Court's landmark rulings. Decisions protecting the rights of privacy, of civil rights, and of women seeking equal protection in the workplace--just to name a few--comprise an important and settled body of the Court's case law. Entire generations of Americans have come to live their lives in reliance upon the Court's rulings in these key areas, and overruling these precedents would simply roll back decades of societal advancement and impose substantial disruption and harm. Therefore, central to the question of a nominee's judicial philosophy is his views on one of the cornerstones of jurisprudence, and that is, judicial precedent. Because it was once said--by a Professor Walter Murphy--the Court is bound by the ``wisdom of the past, not the free choice of the present.'' On this vital matter, John Roberts has firmly stated to me his belief that precedent plays a crucial role in the judicial process, and the fact, a precedent has been directly challenged and upheld deserves respect from the Court. In the course of our July meeting, John Roberts expressed to me that judges must keep in mind that they are not the first ones to address most legal issues that arise, and that stability in the law is key to maintaining the legitimacy of the courts. When I solicited his thoughts with respect to, Chief Justice Rehnquist's decision in the Dickerson case to uphold the Miranda decision even as the Chief Justice Rehnquist opposed Miranda itself, John Roberts concurred with the Chief Justice's principled deference to the doctrine of precedent. As Judge Roberts later indicated to the judiciary committee: I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness . . . It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. Furthermore, Judge Roberts is on record stating that nothing in his personal beliefs, including his religion, would prevent him from faithfully applying the laws of our land. As well, he indicated that nothing in his personal views would prevent him from applying Supreme Court precedent as governed by the doctrine of stare decisis. Thus, he acknowledged the crucial interest by the doctrine of stare decisis to promote stability and predictability, and therefore respect for the law. This commitment to stare decisis takes on, of course, a special significance for this issue of privacy that I and so many Americans accept and embrace as a basic and established right. So, essentially, with regard to a landmark case such as Roe v. Wade, Judge Roberts has outlined the process he would apply in reviewing such a challenge. Specifically, Judge Roberts explained, that, in essence, Roe is buffered by the Casey decision, which affirmed the essential holding of Roe and therefore serves as the more immediate precedent of the Court. And he responded to Senator Specter that Roe is ``settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.'' Mr. President, given the totality of the record before us, I have concluded from his testimony regarding both his judicial methodology and his judicial philosophy that Judge Roberts is not predisposed to overturning the settled precedent represented by Roe. Obviously, none of us can know with certainty how Judge Roberts would vote on any particular case. But we can assess his methodology and analysis in approaching cases, based on his responses to questions posed by the committee throughout this confirmation process. Finally, in meeting with Judge Roberts, I also expressed my view that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's approach on the Court epitomizes a critical nexus between the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the ``real world'' impact of those decisions on the lives of the American people. As Justice Frankfurter once wrote, the most fundamental questions that arise from the Constitution are decided ``not from reading the Constitution but from reading life.'' That sense of perspective will be critical in fulfilling the enormous responsibility Judge Roberts will have serving as Chief Justice. And Judge Roberts has indicated in compelling terms that his approach is to stand back and consider the larger implications of any future ruling and I would encourage him to continue with that model on the Court. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that Judge John Roberts has the potential to become one of the preeminent Chief Justices in modern times. Of course, no Member of this body can forecast with 100 percent accuracy the shape of the Supreme Court under John Roberts. Nonetheless, in evaluating the universe of the threshold qualifications I have outlined, the entirety of the legal and judicial record regarding Judge Roberts points to a fair minded judge with deep respect for the rule of law, the independence of the courts, and the judicial method . . . a judge committed to stability in the law, and to the established judicial principles for reviewing and upholding precedent. There is little doubt that Judge John Roberts will have the opportunity to author a legacy for America that will reverberate for the ages. After intensive examination, it is my conclusion that the totality of the record before us, has earned him the privilege of writing that legacy as the next Chief Justice of the United States. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. SNOWE

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

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

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I am delighted to add my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, as a cosponsor. She has been an ardent advocate and supporter of the Coast Guard. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Maryland as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I will be happy to.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and praise the extraordinary response of the U.S. Coast Guard to Hurricane Katrina, to demonstrate why that response exemplifies the imperative of providing that service with the modern assets required to carry out these lifesaving missions, and to submit a resolution recognizing the awe- inspiring efforts of the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard. I just visited the gulf coast region on Monday with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Tom Collins, and we were guided by Eighth District Commander ADM Robert Duncan. What I saw and heard on that day is a story of heroism and a relentless can-do attitude that is nothing short of miraculous. The human spirit I witnessed was truly transcendental and a level I had never before experienced. As we well know, Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster ever to visit itself upon the United States, with an almost unimaginable magnitude of devastation and loss. The scale of the destruction has been most horrifically reflected in the faces of those we have seen over the past week, faces etched with an indelible and almost unimaginable sorrow, suffering, and burden. Their images have reverberated throughout a country in solidarity with their terrible plight. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama lives have been forever transformed along with the landscape, as we have witnessed untold scenes of homes that no longer exist, floods that ravaged entire neighborhoods and cities, fires that consumed what remains of buildings, and men, women, and children missing loved ones. We have also seen and heard the stories of those individuals who have rushed to the aid of our fellow man, demonstrating that no human or natural act can deprive us of our unyielding and singularly determined spirit. While the hurricane winds and rain have long since dissipated--and now we have anticipation of Hurricane Rita--we all have the collective concern and strength of this Nation that continues unabated, unbroken, undaunted, and unflagging. We must now bring to bear all of our collective will and resources over what will undoubtedly be a long but ultimately victorious process of reclaiming the gulf coast towns and cities for the future. I extend my thoughts and prayers to my colleagues, Senators Cochran, Lott, Sessions, Shelby, Landrieu, and Vitter, as they work to guide their constituents and their families through these most difficult of times. I will certainly do everything I can to assist them and the citizens of their States. Today, as chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee, I believe it is entirely appropriate to focus the Nation's attention on the performance of the U.S. Coast Guard in response to Hurricane Katrina, as I believe it is an exemplary model for future responses. As I do so, I also thank all of our military Active-Duty and Reserve for their heroic service in the gulf shore region. Their performance under these conditions has been outstanding and unprecedented on American soil. As a result of the U.S. Coast Guard's unparalleled performance and operations responding to the unfathomable destruction along the Gulf of Mexico, the plans for which were put into motion even before the storm subsided, thousands of children, senior citizens, and entire families are sleeping safely tonight. Indeed, the heart-wrenching stories I heard during my visit to the Coast Guard--of crews rescuing families trapped in attics, of children separated from their parents, rescue swimmers tapping on roofs seeking signs of life in submerged houses-- will be forever etched in my own mind. People waving towels from windows signifying the need for help, pregnant women about to go into labor being hoisted into awaiting helicopters, rescue crews busting into windows and roofs because there was no means of escape for the occupants--the stories are real, seemingly endless, and all faced with an unrelenting sense of duty and humanity by the men and women of the Coast Guard. Indeed, over the past few weeks, as we see in this chart, we have witnessed time and time again from news sources and television stations the perilous helicopter rescues occurring each and every day. There is an outstanding example of one on this chart that shows exactly the kind of circumstance the Coast Guard has to perform in which to save life after life. Incredibly, the Coast Guard, as of September 20, has saved 33,544 lives. That is the equivalent of the number of rescues performed by the Coast Guard in 8 to 10 years. They accomplished those rescue missions in just the past 2 weeks. The Coast Guard air station in New Orleans, which I visited on Monday, under the incredible leadership of CAPT Bruce Jones, has saved 6,471 lives, almost double the 3,689 lives the station had saved over its previous 50 years of operation. This chart shows the level of catastrophe to which the Coast Guard responded. I talked to a rescue swimmer who genuinely believed that if he had completed 15 rescues that day, it somehow wasn't enough. What is perhaps most remarkable is that the Coast Guard simply did not rescue these people and deliver them to a nearby field or highway overpass until they could get further help. Nor did they forget that other family members remained in peril, not yet rescued. Rather, the men and women of the Coast Guard took it upon themselves to ensure to the best of their ability that families would be kept intact and assisted those they rescued even after the rescue operation was complete. They actually returned to overpasses to follow up with those whom they had rescued. And if they still needed additional assistance or they hadn't been taken to where they should have been going with the medical rescue crews, they made that happen. They got them water if they needed it. If they required food, they brought them food. As ADM Robert Duncan, District Commander for the gulf region, so eloquently expressed: When the Coast Guard rescue teams touched a person, they owned them. This meant the Coast Guard was making itself responsible for their continued well-being. I ask my colleagues, what could be a more touching or profound testament to the boundless will and compassion that the U.S. Coast Guard exhibited during this operation? The people of the Coast Guard have conducted themselves oblivious to the true level of their own personal sacrifice and seemingly without regard to the horrific conditions in which they serve. Seventy percent of them alone lost their houses; lost everything, that is, but their sense of duty to their fellow human beings in distress and despair. The fact is, the Coast Guard has been, is, and will always remain a vital component of America's national security and disaster response. Coast Guard personnel risk their lives each and every day protecting our Nation and saving lives, no more so than during this national tragedy. Leadership, as we all know, starts from the top. For the U.S. Coast Guard, that individual is ADM Tom Collins. Admiral Collins has been a solid steady force in ensuring the rapid and safe execution of rescue operations. In the midst of the storm and bureaucratic interagency chaos, the Coast Guard remained resolved, organized, focused, and responsive to those in desperate need. The bottom line is that the members of the Coast Guard did not wait to be told to conduct their mission. They knew their mission. They refused to let anything, including redtape, get in their way. When they needed fuel for helicopters, they found fuel. When they needed water for their crews or for those they rescued, they found water. They did not ask if an operation was actually a State responsibility or local responsibility or another Federal agency's responsibility. They made it their responsibility. They took ownership of the life-and-death tasks at hand. Again, the can-do attitude of the Coast Guard is what allowed them to shine. As Vice Admiral Allen, the principal Federal officer in charge of the relief operation, so simply stated: The Coast Guard has a bias for action. And from all I have seen, I could not agree more. Indeed, the results are a living testament to the service's efficiency and organization and the superlative leadership of Admiral Collins. The Coast Guard had the foresight and the wherewithal to pre-position its assets before the storm struck and to respond rapidly to its aftermath. Moreover, the Coast Guard's exceptional planning led to not a single loss of a Coast Guard plane or boat and enabled it to be on the scene immediately upon the passage of the storm. This planning expertise and management of assets should be the example for all Federal agencies to follow. The Coast Guard also sent to the area personnel from Coast Guard stations from around the country to help with the effort as part of its well-conceived plan. These personnel specialize in different fields and had never previously worked together yet got the job done as if they had been on the same team forever. I think of the 160 crew members attached to the Coast Guard cutter Harriet Lane, a 270-foot cutter I visited on Monday, docked in New Orleans, that normally berths just 100 crew members. Yet all of those aboard worked flawlessly together, overcoming obstacle after obstacle. In one instance, due to the cutter's inability to make water from oil-polluted river water, the crew set out to procure water from wherever possible. This mission led them to the discovery of water held in tanks controlled by the Forest Service on the pier. Unable to simply give them the water due to bureaucratic hurdles, the Coast Guard found a contractor who was able to pump water from their tanks into the cutter. This is a ridiculous hurdle that should never have existed in the first place. Yet, once again, the Coast Guard didn't waste time with bureaucratic paperwork; instead, they got the job done. The bottom line is, from what we have seen to date, I believe that the Coast Guard's Herculean efforts provides a model for the proper planning and execution of a mission to respond to a national emergency or crisis. And on that note, I was certainly pleased that Vice Admiral Allen was selected to coordinate the Federal response to Katrina. He will bring that Coast Guard sensibility to the entire operation. These astounding results, however, do not come without a cost. The Coast Guard has already used the funds allocated for search and rescue operations for the entire year and beyond. Furthermore, the extensive rate of use during the rescue mission is also degrading Coast Guard assets faster and delaying necessary maintenance. Supplemental funding, which the Coast Guard has not yet received, is essential to ensure that cutters, small boats, and aircraft can operate and continue its heroic service in the coming months. The Coast Guard has sustained damage to several small boat stations and air stations and to other facilities throughout the region. The Coast Guard station in Gulfport, MS, simply no longer exists. The Coast Guard is actively assisting Americans, and we in the Congress must return the favor and start helping the Coast Guard by providing them with crucial supplemental funding to cover the entirety of their operational requirements and to provide the necessary funding to replace its lost infrastructure. In that light, I have sent a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget encouraging him to include a funding line in the next supplemental appropriations bill for the Coast Guard. I thank my many colleagues who have joined me in support of this request. In addition, the Coast Guard is charged with maintaining all the aids to navigation within the region, including those of the Mississippi River. These aids were either totally lost or severely damaged. Again, it shows on this chart that Congress has also mandated the Coast Guard to respond to marine environmental pollution, which is now reaching untold levels of hazardous contamination throughout the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico, and I think it is an indication of all the responses to the contamination of oil spills in the region to which the Coast Guard has had to respond. More than 7 million gallons of oil has polluted the water in New Orleans. The bottom line is, not only have the people of the Coast Guard been risking their own lives to save the 33,544 other individuals, but they have also responded to hazardous liquid spills in the region, conducted 4,688 sorties, carried out 11,548 small boat and cutter sorties, repaired vital aids to navigation to facilitate the flow of commerce in the Mississippi, and have assisted in the replenishment of critical supplies to thousands of displaced persons. Yet, as capable and successful as the Coast Guard has been in carrying out all of its missions, including opening the ports and the waterways and drug interdiction--they are even doing that down there in combination with all of these other missions--this service was already stretched thin in the aftermath of 9/11. Unless Congress pledges to equip the service with modern equipment, we jeopardize the success of any future missions. The Coast Guard requires new cutters and aircraft now, and it can start this process only if Congress fully funds Deepwater, the service's recapitalization program for procuring new cutters, small boats, and aircraft. The Senate version of the Coast Guard bill authorizes a total of $8.2 billion for the Coast Guard, $400 million over the administration's request. Within that request, Deepwater authorized $1.1 billion, $134 million over the administration's request. We must ensure our numbers, the Senate numbers, which are the higher numbers, are maintained in conference of this legislation. By accomplishing this, it will allow for a targeted acceleration of required assets, those resources deemed most critical to the Coast Guard now. The current situation can only be categorized as dire. It is a national disgrace that this service that is integral to search and rescue operations, integral to our homeland security, as we saw in the aftermath of September 11 when they immediately secured New York Harbor, integral to our fishing industry, would be operating the 40th oldest fleet out of 42 in the world. Only the Philippines and Mexico have older fleets. Deepwater is designed to remedy this situation, but in 20 to 25 years, rather than as I have insisted and I have requested, that Deepwater needs to be completed in 10 to 15 years at the outset. If anyone questions the condition of the Coast Guard assets, I suggest they go out and sail on an aging cutter, go fly on an aging airframe, and you will witness firsthand the conditions that we continue to place upon the dedicated members of the Coast Guard. You only have to recall the graphic portrayals of what occurred during Hurricane Katrina, when these Coast Guard men and women performed under such perilous circumstances, when they were able to save so many thousands and thousands of men and women--in fact, more than 33,544 individuals under very hazardous circumstances and conditions. At my subcommittee's June 21 hearing on the revised Deepwater implementation plan, we once again revisited the Coast Guard's current status of its legacy assets and the extremely high maintenance costs associated with them. The inescapable conclusion was the Coast Guard cannot continue on the path it is currently being forced to walk. It requires the additional money, the additional cutters and aircraft, and the latest technologies associated with command, control, and communications. On my visit to the cutter Harriet Lane in New Orleans this last week, I was briefed on the extreme difficulties encountered in trying to establish effective communications among Federal, State, and local agencies. This cutter does not have the communications capabilities of what a new Deepwater cutter would be able to provide. In fact, when cell phones didn't work and text messages were limited, they tried to find old satellite phones to use to communicate. We know that the new equipment on the new ships would provide this kind of capability that is absolutely essential. They would be paramount in streamlining and making these rescue efforts more efficient. Yet, even without this new technology, the Coast Guard, as I said, made it work with the resources they had at their disposal. With an inadequate amount of satellite receivers, the cutters still prioritized and switched communication channels to effectively prosecute the mission. Yet the undeniable truth is, such a workaround should not have to happen and would not happen on new Deepwater cutters. The Coast Guard is a service clearly already populated with heroes. We should not ask them all to be MacGuivers, as well as jury-rigging and Rube Goldberging rescue operations already perilous enough. Doesn't America deserve better? Don't the men and women of the Coast Guard who perform so heroically deserve more from us than fighting 21st century threats and the war on terrorism with equipment from World War II? Think about it: Some of these ships were operating when Emperor Hirohito of Japan surrendered to the United States, operating through the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, and yet they remain as part of our U.S. Coast Guard in the year 2005. Some vessels are so old the Coast Guard has to go to maritime museums to find spare parts. How can we relegate the Coast Guard to this fate? As you look on this chart, USA Today did a very indepth story on the Coast Guard and its aging assets of ships and aircraft. It says, and this was done July 6: Aging Fleet Could Threaten Service's Anti-terror Mission. That is what it is all about. We should have learned in the aftermath of September 11 what we need to accelerate, what we need to establish for priorities and making sure the agency we ask so much from, the Coast Guard, that we ask to do so much for so little, gets at least the equipment they deserve when they are performing these risky missions, as we have seen so graphically over the last few weeks. How can we relegate the Coast Guard to this fate? How can a nation of such resources fail to provide them to this indispensable service? While the people of the Coast Guard certainly go above and beyond the call of duty, the very equipment they sail and fly on has gone way beyond the call of duty, and it is time they were retired for good. Yet the Coast Guard will continue to operate one of the oldest fleets for another 20 to 25 years with the current funding formula that is being made available for the Deepwater program. We are not just talking about ships. Under Deepwater, vital aircraft, including the outdated HH-65 Dolphin and the HH-60 Jayhawk helicopters we have all seen conducting the rescue hoists on television, would be reengined and reoutfitted with improved navigation and radar equipment. But if Deepwater is not fully funded, these crucial improvements will not occur on a timely basis, preventing the Coast Guard from being fully capable when the next tragedy strikes. These are not exaggerated predictions. Pilots told me firsthand that with the new technology, they could have seen much more clearly in the total darkness that loomed over New Orleans, allowing them to identify downed power lines, vertical obstructions, and citizens requiring assistance. That is why I repeatedly urged the administration and the Congress, for the last 4 years, to increase the funding for this program immediately and why I successfully fought to include a report on the possibility of accelerating the Deepwater program from a 20-to-25-year program to a 10-year program in the Homeland Security bill. The fact is, by reducing the duration of implementation for the program, the Coast Guard could receive these vital assets 10 to 15 years sooner, and not a moment too soon in my book. We cannot forget that ships are not constructed in weeks or months. They take years to design and fabricate. Now, only one national security cutter is in fabrication. The offshore patrol cutter is not in production, and the fast response cutter remains in the design phase. So we must act now. Moreover, the unequivocal findings of the report I required was acceleration of the Deepwater program is not only feasible, it would also save the American taxpayers a billion dollars in total acquisition costs. So, I ask, what exactly is there not to get? By accelerating the Deepwater program, we would provide desperately-needed updated equipment to this premier security and search and rescue service, while saving taxpayer money, not to mention ultimately saving lives. Simply put, it defies the laws of common sense to not implement Deepwater as soon as possible. That is why I have recently sent the appropriations committee a letter, urging them to increase the funding for Deepwater in this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill. Specifically, in the Senate version of the Coast Guard's authorization bill, we authorize $1.1 billion to be appropriated for Deepwater. This level will keep the Coast Guard on the proper road to guide them toward a modern maritime fleet of cutters and aircraft, able to perform their vital missions in the 21st century. It is critically important we not only provide the level of funding but we also ensure that we accelerate the Deepwater acquisition program to 10 to 15 years as absolutely vital and essential. So I hope we would be able to also release from the Senate the Coast Guard authorization legislation that allows for the increased funding, that allows for this process to continue and, in addition, to get the higher amount of the appropriations and to get the acceleration of the Deepwater program. That is what I ask, that we release the Coast Guard authorization bill that is bottled up in the Senate. We need to remove all of the excuses and allow this process to go forward for the service that has conducted itself so courageously and heroically during the course of Hurricane Katrina. In visiting with the men and women of the various Coast Guard stations, in New Orleans as well as the station in Gulfport, MS, I can tell you not one was complaining--not one. In fact, one admiral said, you know, we have just been telling you some of the obstacles we had to overcome to do our job, and we will do it no matter what, no matter the circumstance. We are asking you not to use it as a rationale to defer the needed repairs, maintenance, and the new equipment for the future because we don't know what is in the future when it comes to unforeseeable events. We cannot predict. We did not predict 9/11. We predicted Hurricane Katrina. Look what happened. It was the Coast Guard that performed that mission. But we have to make sure that the Coast Guard receives the funding it requires in the future in order to enable it to respond as it did during the course of Hurricane Katrina. We cannot build ships nor aircraft overnight. It takes several years to get these ships in the pipeline. So unless we get the authorization bill out of the Senate and out of the entire Congress that we have been urging for months to get done, to have an accelerating program, to get the appropriations that are essential, that cannot happen. So I am pleading with the Senate, pleading with the Congress to do what is right for this magnificent agency that is, by the way, on the frontlines for protecting us and our homeland security, one of the greatest problems of which, as you know, is the transshipment of weapons of mass destruction. The Coast Guard is also essential and a vital component in protecting our homeland. They are a multimission agency. They are asked, as I said earlier, to do so much with so little. And even as they are performing down there in the gulf, they didn't ignore their other responsibilities--because of homeland security--for keeping the waterways open, which they have now done in the gulf, because it is important we continue the commerce, the interdiction of drugs; as a matter of fact, even over the weekend, providing the humanitarian assistance that is so vital, cleaning up the oil spills and the pollution that has occurred. As I showed you in a previous chart, as we have seen here in the active response that they have provided in so many areas, because of the spill of oil that is polluting the area and contaminating the water, that has complicated the task of the cleanup. You can't ask the Agency to do more in addition to the saving of 33,000 lives. When I talked to the rescue swimmers and the pilots, I asked them what was the greatest challenge and they said: You know, we were overwhelmed, we were overwhelmed because we had so many people to rescue, and we feel we are doing nothing in a day when we are rescuing 15 individuals--under, as you can imagine, some very difficult and dire circumstances. I ask my colleagues, what more does the Coast Guard have to do to prove its immense value to America? After the service's heroic and well planned efforts in responding to Hurricane Katrina, they have clearly and convincingly shown that all Americans are well served by the United States Coast Guard. Therefore, I am proud to send this resolution to the desk for consideration in the Senate, which gives recognition to the valiant work of the Coast Guard. The resolution also notes the necessity of improving the Coast Guard's aging fleet of ships and aircraft. I hope all of my colleagues can support this resolution. Now is the time for us in the Congress to fully recognize the importance of the Coast Guard and provide the service with the assets it needs to do the job now and into the future. The time has come, it is now our responsibility and our solemn duty to ensure it has the resources needed in order to serve the citizens of the United States for decades to come and I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort. It is vital because they are on the frontlines. They responded magnificently, and they should be recognized and rewarded and applauded for the job they have done and the job they will continue to do in the future. I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Chair wishes to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship will hold a public hearing entitled, ``The Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Small Businesses'' on Thursday, September 22, 2005, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a bill which provides a comprehensive package for immediate emergency resources to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives and their businesses. As we are well aware, the entire Gulf Coast of the United States has been ravaged by the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. No natural disaster in this country in recent memory has carried with it the devastation and horror we have witnessed in the recent weeks. Many lives have been lost and damages are projected in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The President and Congress have already provided over $61 billion in emergency funds. While we work to re-establish communities and provide some stability to the affected areas, we must consider the enormous economic impact this catastrophe has had on the region and on our entire Nation. This impact is particularly pronounced for the vital small business sector. With over 800,000 firms damaged in the Hurricane-affected region, employment in the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama area may be reduced by over a million jobs! Moreover, our economy which has recently recovered from recession, thanks largely to our small businesses which have created three-quarters of all new jobs, could be dampened by as much as a full percentage point. As Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am committed to do everything in my power to provide immediate and necessary support to rebuild this region and to help sustain our economy. I want to ensure that every American affected by this Hurricane has the resources to begin rebuilding their lives, their businesses and their dreams. The provisions of this bill were contained in an amendment that I proposed, Amendment #1717, to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 2862. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Vitter, Senator Talent, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu, for co-sponsoring that amendment. The amendment was approved in the Senate by a rollcall vote of 96 to 0 on September 15, 2006, and subsequently passed the Senate in the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act on that same day. Because the Federal Disaster Loan program administered by the Small Business Administration issues Disaster Loans to businesses, homeowners, and renters, this legislation would have a significant impact on many facets of the efforts to rebuild the areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I will also be holding a hearing in the Small Business Committee on September 22, 2005 to address the impact that Hurricane Katrina has had on small businesses. The Small Business Administration is and must be at the forefront of this massive relief effort, playing a significant role in assisting impacted communities. This bill will strengthen the SBA's resources and will enable them to pave the pathway to recovery. I have faith that American small businesses will persevere through these difficult times and help lead the region's recovery. It is essential that we work together here in Congress, and put forth the best possible proposal to stimulate our economy and foster job growth. I have spoken with SBA's Administrator Barreto concerning the various ways to respond to this disaster and assist with the recovery. He informed me that FEMA has referred over 500,000 cases for loan assistance to the SBA, and that the SBA is receiving up to 20,000 calls per day. This is a tremendous volume and a vital challenge that the SBA must satisfy. To date, the SBA has sent out almost 500,000 applications for loans to individuals and businesses, and has received 810 loan applications as of Monday morning, which demonstrates that much assistance is yet to be provided by the SBA. Therefore, it is critical that we act now! I firmly believe this legislation is the best possible package to aid families, businesses and communities through these challenging times. Small businesses must have a fighting chance to survive the economic disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina. I have included many provisions in my bill that would assist hurricane victims applying for SBA disaster loans. My legislation increases the maximum size of an SBA Disaster Loan from $1.5 million per loan to $10 million per loan and makes it possible for non-profit institutions damaged by Hurricane Katrina to be eligible for Disaster Loans. I have also provided the SBA with the authority to grant victims of Hurricane Katrina up to 12 months to begin repaying their SBA disaster loans which would assist both small and large businesses, homeowners, and renters. This 12 month period could be extended to 24 months at the discretion of the SBA Administrator if he determines that Katrina victims would need additional time to begin repaying their loans. This would allow also homeowners and businesses additional time to get their lives and businesses restored before being required to begin repaying loans. This legislation also proposes lowering fees for the 7(a) program to make borrowing more affordable for small businesses outside the disaster areas, many of which have been impacted by the disaster, and are struggling to cover higher costs in health care and energy, and rising interest rates. Recognizing the increased demand this disaster will place on all small business lending programs, the amendment proposes increasing the 7(a) lending program from a program level of $17 billion to $20 billion, and the 504 lending program from a program level of $7.5 billion to $10 billion. Both the 504 and 7(a) lending programs are funded entirely through fees, so the increases require no appropriation. Moreover, this bill increases the program level for SBA Disaster Loans--Physical and Economic Injury--by approximately $800 million, requiring an appropriation of approximately $117 million. The Committee is concerned there will not be enough funding for disaster loans available to meet the scope of this disaster, given that the economic injury disaster loans alone for 9-11 amounted to about $1 billion, and the physical damage for Katrina is considered much more extensive. The bill also includes a provision requiring the SBA to treat these special provisions as separate from the regular programs, to avoid increasing future subsidy rates, and therefore, the costs for borrowers who rely on those programs. This same protection was provided for emergency 7(a) loans after 9-11 and for the special disaster loans for 9-11. Additionally, many small businesses in the disaster areas will require relief from making payments and interest on 7(a) and 504 loans they had before Katrina hit. Therefore, this amendment includes a provision that directs the SBA to cover the payments and interest on existing loans for up to two years, or until the small business can resume payments. Similar to the Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) loans enacted by Congress after 9-11, this bill allows the SBA to provide similar loans with lower fees for small businesses located outside the disaster zones but are nonetheless indirectly impacted by Hurricane Katrina. The lower fees also provide the lenders with an incentive to lend to these businesses. Importantly, the bill includes protections to mitigate recent reports of past misdirection of loans to non-disaster victims. The protections include requiring lenders to inform borrowers that they are receiving Katrina relief loans, requiring lenders to document to the SBA how the borrower was adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina, and for the Government Accountability Office to collect the explanations and report to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and House Committee on Small Business every six months, verifying loans are being used for the intended purposes. These added protections will ensure that only applicants who really need these loans to recover from the horrific effects of Hurricane Katrina will receive the loans. Furthermore, the legislation authorizes $400 million to the affected state governments of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida to provide emergency bridge loans or grants to small businesses in the disaster areas that have been adversely impacted by Hurricane Katrina and require immediate access to capital until they can secure other loans or financial assistance. The goal is to disburse the funds within seven days, and this measure is based on a successful program that helped victims of the hurricanes in Florida. With the cost of Katrina relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100 billion, small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive their fair share of federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My bill also attempts to provide critical assistance to small businesses that have been operating in the areas devastated by the Hurricane Katrina by expanding access to Federal contract and subcontracts. Government projects provide solid business opportunities and prompt, steady pay for small businessmen and businesswomen. In addition, government procurement would open doors for many local small businesses to participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the Gulf Coast areas. Prior to the disaster, small construction companies in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana brought home nearly $500 million in Federal contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the Gulf Coast region exceeded $3 billion a year. While many small businesses would benefit from other forms of disaster assistance, many of them are ready to get back to work and into business as soon as possible. To that end, my bill designates the Hurricane Katrina disaster area as a HUBZone. A HUBZone designation would enable small businesses locating in the disaster area and employing people in that area to receive contracting preferences and price evaluation preferences to offset greater costs of doing business. The HUBZone program was created to direct federal contacting dollars to economically distressed areas. Extending the HUBZone designation to the Gulf Coast would bring needed businesses development tools to affected areas. In addition, my bill would increase the maximum size of surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million for Katrina-related contracts. Small contractors vying for work need an increase in bonds to handle greater projects for Hurricane Katrina relief. Local small businesses in the Gulf Coast can use higher bonds to compensate for the damage to their assets from the Hurricane. My bill would also direct the SBA, its resources partners, and the Federal offices of small and disadvantaged business utilization to create a contracting outreach program for small businesses located or willing to locate in the Katrina disaster area. Finally, my bill would establish small business contracting and subcontracting goals for all Katrina-related contracts and subcontracts to promote greater jobs creation and development, while providing reasonable flexibility to Federal agencies in meeting that goal in light of difficult circumstances on the ground. Finally I would also like to comment on the funding levels provided for the SBA in this bill. I have authorized the appropriation of $24.25 million for grants to increase business counseling in the damaged areas for several SBA entrepreneurial development programs including: Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs); SCORE; Womens Business Centers (WBCs); Veteran's Business Centers, and Microloan Technical Assistance. Our Nation's 25 million small businesses prove time and again to breathe new life into our economy, by growing at twice the rate of all firms. And when a disaster strikes, the spirit, determination and will of America's small businesses help to create the firm economic foundation, propelling our nation's economic growth. Therefore, we in turn must create an atmosphere favorable for small businesses and provide this emergency package to the SBA. We must allow Nation's small businesses to do what they do best--``create jobs.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Congress must find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we fail to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for new innovation, and the entrepreneurs reach for the American dream.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a bill which provides a comprehensive package for immediate emergency resources to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild their lives and their businesses. As we are well aware, the entire Gulf Coast of the United States has been ravaged by the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. No natural disaster in this country in recent memory has carried with it the devastation and horror we have witnessed in the recent weeks. Many lives have been lost and damages are projected in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The President and Congress have already provided over $61 billion in emergency funds. While we work to re-establish communities and provide some stability to the affected areas, we must consider the enormous economic impact this catastrophe has had on the region and on our entire Nation. This impact is particularly pronounced for the vital small business sector. With over 800,000 firms damaged in the Hurricane-affected region, employment in the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama area may be reduced by over a million jobs! Moreover, our economy which has recently recovered from recession, thanks largely to our small businesses which have created three-quarters of all new jobs, could be dampened by as much as a full percentage point. As Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am committed to do everything in my power to provide immediate and necessary support to rebuild this region and to help sustain our economy. I want to ensure that every American affected by this Hurricane has the resources to begin rebuilding their lives, their businesses and their dreams. The provisions of this bill were contained in an amendment that I proposed, Amendment #1717, to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act of 2005, H.R. 2862. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Vitter, Senator Talent, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu, for co-sponsoring that amendment. The amendment was approved in the Senate by a rollcall vote of 96 to 0 on September 15, 2006, and subsequently passed the Senate in the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act on that same day. Because the Federal Disaster Loan program administered by the Small Business Administration issues Disaster Loans to businesses, homeowners, and renters, this legislation would have a significant impact on many facets of the efforts to rebuild the areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I will also be holding a hearing in the Small Business Committee on September 22, 2005 to address the impact that Hurricane Katrina has had on small businesses. The Small Business Administration is and must be at the forefront of this massive relief effort, playing a significant role in assisting impacted communities. This bill will strengthen the SBA's resources and will enable them to pave the pathway to recovery. I have faith that American small businesses will persevere through these difficult times and help lead the region's recovery. It is essential that we work together here in Congress, and put forth the best possible proposal to stimulate our economy and foster job growth. I have spoken with SBA's Administrator Barreto concerning the various ways to respond to this disaster and assist with the recovery. He informed me that FEMA has referred over 500,000 cases for loan assistance to the SBA, and that the SBA is receiving up to 20,000 calls per day. This is a tremendous volume and a vital challenge that the SBA must satisfy. To date, the SBA has sent out almost 500,000 applications for loans to individuals and businesses, and has received 810 loan applications as of Monday morning, which demonstrates that much assistance is yet to be provided by the SBA. Therefore, it is critical that we act now! I firmly believe this legislation is the best possible package to aid families, businesses and communities through these challenging times. Small businesses must have a fighting chance to survive the economic disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina. I have included many provisions in my bill that would assist hurricane victims applying for SBA disaster loans. My legislation increases the maximum size of an SBA Disaster Loan from $1.5 million per loan to $10 million per loan and makes it possible for non-profit institutions damaged by Hurricane Katrina to be eligible for Disaster Loans. I have also provided the SBA with the authority to grant victims of Hurricane Katrina up to 12 months to begin repaying their SBA disaster loans which would assist both small and large businesses, homeowners, and renters. This 12 month period could be extended to 24 months at the discretion of the SBA Administrator if he determines that Katrina victims would need additional time to begin repaying their loans. This would allow also homeowners and businesses additional time to get their lives and businesses restored before being required to begin repaying loans. This legislation also proposes lowering fees for the 7(a) program to make borrowing more affordable for small businesses outside the disaster areas, many of which have been impacted by the disaster, and are struggling to cover higher costs in health care and energy, and rising interest rates. Recognizing the increased demand this disaster will place on all small business lending programs, the amendment proposes increasing the 7(a) lending program from a program level of $17 billion to $20 billion, and the 504 lending program from a program level of $7.5 billion to $10 billion. Both the 504 and 7(a) lending programs are funded entirely through fees, so the increases require no appropriation. Moreover, this bill increases the program level for SBA Disaster Loans--Physical and Economic Injury--by approximately $800 million, requiring an appropriation of approximately $117 million. The Committee is concerned there will not be enough funding for disaster loans available to meet the scope of this disaster, given that the economic injury disaster loans alone for 9-11 amounted to about $1 billion, and the physical damage for Katrina is considered much more extensive. The bill also includes a provision requiring the SBA to treat these special provisions as separate from the regular programs, to avoid increasing future subsidy rates, and therefore, the costs for borrowers who rely on those programs. This same protection was provided for emergency 7(a) loans after 9-11 and for the special disaster loans for 9-11. Additionally, many small businesses in the disaster areas will require relief from making payments and interest on 7(a) and 504 loans they had before Katrina hit. Therefore, this amendment includes a provision that directs the SBA to cover the payments and interest on existing loans for up to two years, or until the small business can resume payments. Similar to the Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) loans enacted by Congress after 9-11, this bill allows the SBA to provide similar loans with lower fees for small businesses located outside the disaster zones but are nonetheless indirectly impacted by Hurricane Katrina. The lower fees also provide the lenders with an incentive to lend to these businesses. Importantly, the bill includes protections to mitigate recent reports of past misdirection of loans to non-disaster victims. The protections include requiring lenders to inform borrowers that they are receiving Katrina relief loans, requiring lenders to document to the SBA how the borrower was adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina, and for the Government Accountability Office to collect the explanations and report to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and House Committee on Small Business every six months, verifying loans are being used for the intended purposes. These added protections will ensure that only applicants who really need these loans to recover from the horrific effects of Hurricane Katrina will receive the loans. Furthermore, the legislation authorizes $400 million to the affected state governments of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida to provide emergency bridge loans or grants to small businesses in the disaster areas that have been adversely impacted by Hurricane Katrina and require immediate access to capital until they can secure other loans or financial assistance. The goal is to disburse the funds within seven days, and this measure is based on a successful program that helped victims of the hurricanes in Florida. With the cost of Katrina relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100 billion, small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive their fair share of federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My bill also attempts to provide critical assistance to small businesses that have been operating in the areas devastated by the Hurricane Katrina by expanding access to Federal contract and subcontracts. Government projects provide solid business opportunities and prompt, steady pay for small businessmen and businesswomen. In addition, government procurement would open doors for many local small businesses to participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the Gulf Coast areas. Prior to the disaster, small construction companies in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana brought home nearly $500 million in Federal contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the Gulf Coast region exceeded $3 billion a year. While many small businesses would benefit from other forms of disaster assistance, many of them are ready to get back to work and into business as soon as possible. To that end, my bill designates the Hurricane Katrina disaster area as a HUBZone. A HUBZone designation would enable small businesses locating in the disaster area and employing people in that area to receive contracting preferences and price evaluation preferences to offset greater costs of doing business. The HUBZone program was created to direct federal contacting dollars to economically distressed areas. Extending the HUBZone designation to the Gulf Coast would bring needed businesses development tools to affected areas. In addition, my bill would increase the maximum size of surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million for Katrina-related contracts. Small contractors vying for work need an increase in bonds to handle greater projects for Hurricane Katrina relief. Local small businesses in the Gulf Coast can use higher bonds to compensate for the damage to their assets from the Hurricane. My bill would also direct the SBA, its resources partners, and the Federal offices of small and disadvantaged business utilization to create a contracting outreach program for small businesses located or willing to locate in the Katrina disaster area. Finally, my bill would establish small business contracting and subcontracting goals for all Katrina-related contracts and subcontracts to promote greater jobs creation and development, while providing reasonable flexibility to Federal agencies in meeting that goal in light of difficult circumstances on the ground. Finally I would also like to comment on the funding levels provided for the SBA in this bill. I have authorized the appropriation of $24.25 million for grants to increase business counseling in the damaged areas for several SBA entrepreneurial development programs including: Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs); SCORE; Womens Business Centers (WBCs); Veteran's Business Centers, and Microloan Technical Assistance. Our Nation's 25 million small businesses prove time and again to breathe new life into our economy, by growing at twice the rate of all firms. And when a disaster strikes, the spirit, determination and will of America's small businesses help to create the firm economic foundation, propelling our nation's economic growth. Therefore, we in turn must create an atmosphere favorable for small businesses and provide this emergency package to the SBA. We must allow Nation's small businesses to do what they do best--``create jobs.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Too much is at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow this critical legislation to languish. Congress must find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strive for anything less, we fail to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for new innovation, and the entrepreneurs reach for the American dream.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Inouye, co- chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, to discuss amendment to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or USF, the institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone itself, and this amendment today marks one key step in ensuring that this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century. Before I go into the merits of the amendment, I want to assure my colleagues that this amendment touches upon an issue that has been in discussion for a long time. In fact, it is almost identical to legislation, S. 241, which I introduced early in the 109th Congress along with, Senator Rockefeller and the chairman and co-chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senators Stevens and Inouye. A total of 41 co-sponsors are on the bill today. Countless telecommunications companies and educational organizations have also endorsed the bill. Moreover, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this past spring to discuss the need for such legislation. I stand before you today offering this amendment because our time is running out. As I will explain more in a moment, the exemption of the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act is about to expire. If it is not extended soon, the programs supported by the Universal Service Fund will be in jeopardy. The amendment today pertains specifically to the Universal Service Administration Company, or USAC, the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. Both this amendment and S. 241 are very similar to S. 2994, a bill that I introduced during the 108th Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily imposed accounting rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem. According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the Federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents Government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more or less monthly basis, of moneys derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent. After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last year, the entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for 1 year until a permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I decided to pursue a 1-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides a second extension of the exemption until a permanent solution is found. Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other Federal programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF has a funding mechanism different from most Federal programs. The USF functioned very well for many years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well--and also a spike in the USF surcharge on consumers' telephone bills. Last year we undertook a bipartisan effort among members on the committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. The temporary extension that we worked so hard to pass has almost expired. We must extend the exemption 1 more year so that the Universal Service Fund can continue to support rural consumers, schools, libraries, hospitals and low-income households.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that gives students, parents and teachers options and flexibility for meeting accountability and proficiency standards--the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. My colleague, Senator Collins, and I have been working hand-in-hand with Maine's educators to identify problems with the No Child Left Behind Act and develop practical solutions to these issues. The bill we introduce today is the product of our combined efforts. In 2001, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, set forth a truly ambitious education reform. This is a law that was conceived and created with the worthy intention to provide equal educational opportunity for every American child. Upon implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act some unforseen complications of the Act have become apparent. And that is why Senator Collins and I called for the creation of No Child Left Behind Task Force in 2003 in response to the concerns we heard in meetings with Maine's education professionals. As described by the Task Force, ``the challenge that the Task Force faced was to confront the issues raised by No Child Left Behind, to ask how the common State and Federal objectives could be met, and to assess how No Child Left Behind and the Maine Learning Results could be coordinated better to the benefit of the citizens of Maine.'' The members of this Task Force have their fingers on the pulse of their students' needs and are therefore uniquely qualified to assess this law and make recommendations on how to improve it. In March of this year we received the Task Force report, and it is with these recommendations that Senator Collins and I could understand its impact on our state and our children, so that we can move forward to improve this law in a meaningful manner. Maine's No Child Left Behind Task Force issued several recommendations in five major areas: annual yearly progress, assessment and accountability; reading and limited English proficiency students; special education; highly qualified teachers; and funding. The No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act addresses each of these areas in several ways. For example, our bill allows local education authorities to use local assessments as opposed to a state-wide test to measure adequate yearly progress. The Act also gives States additional options for deeming a teacher highly qualified, give schools the discretion to use reading activities grants in a manner that will best address the needs of their students and allows schools flexibility with limited English proficiency students. This is only a sample of the many modifications our bill makes that will results in No Child Left Behind being more effective in the State of Maine. One of our democracy's most noble goals, still a work in progress, has been to create a level playing field on which our children may strive to learn and reach their potential. Clearly, education, along with the family, plays an integral role in achieving this great imperative, which distinguishes our nation and helps make us worthy of the world's emulation. The No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act will help to further this goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that gives students, parents and teachers options and flexibility for meeting accountability and proficiency standards--the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. My colleague, Senator Collins, and I have been working hand-in-hand with Maine's educators to identify problems with the No Child Left Behind Act and develop practical solutions to these issues. The bill we introduce today is the product of our combined efforts. In 2001, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, set forth a truly ambitious education reform. This is a law that was conceived and created with the worthy intention to provide equal educational opportunity for every American child. Upon implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act some unforseen complications of the Act have become apparent. And that is why Senator Collins and I called for the creation of No Child Left Behind Task Force in 2003 in response to the concerns we heard in meetings with Maine's education professionals. As described by the Task Force, ``the challenge that the Task Force faced was to confront the issues raised by No Child Left Behind, to ask how the common State and Federal objectives could be met, and to assess how No Child Left Behind and the Maine Learning Results could be coordinated better to the benefit of the citizens of Maine.'' The members of this Task Force have their fingers on the pulse of their students' needs and are therefore uniquely qualified to assess this law and make recommendations on how to improve it. In March of this year we received the Task Force report, and it is with these recommendations that Senator Collins and I could understand its impact on our state and our children, so that we can move forward to improve this law in a meaningful manner. Maine's No Child Left Behind Task Force issued several recommendations in five major areas: annual yearly progress, assessment and accountability; reading and limited English proficiency students; special education; highly qualified teachers; and funding. The No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act addresses each of these areas in several ways. For example, our bill allows local education authorities to use local assessments as opposed to a state-wide test to measure adequate yearly progress. The Act also gives States additional options for deeming a teacher highly qualified, give schools the discretion to use reading activities grants in a manner that will best address the needs of their students and allows schools flexibility with limited English proficiency students. This is only a sample of the many modifications our bill makes that will results in No Child Left Behind being more effective in the State of Maine. One of our democracy's most noble goals, still a work in progress, has been to create a level playing field on which our children may strive to learn and reach their potential. Clearly, education, along with the family, plays an integral role in achieving this great imperative, which distinguishes our nation and helps make us worthy of the world's emulation. The No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act will help to further this goal.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership, as well as Senator Collins and Senator Jeffords and so many others in bringing forward this resolution of disapproval. I am here because I happen to believe that the air in Maine, or any part of this country, should not be for sale to the lowest bidder when it comes to our air. Given that the EPA spent over a decade developing the scientific and technological basis for regulating major sources of mercury--dangerous mercury--I am confounded by the failure of its rule to meet either the letter or the intent of the law. The proposed EPA rule represents a missed opportunity to incorporate the recent research into the health effects of mercury or the recent technological innovations that significantly reduce the levels of mercury emissions. If enacted, the resolution will suspend the first EPA rule that overturns its own 2000 decision and allows powerplants to be delisted as a source of mercury pollution. Since 2000, research has determined that mercury pollution is more widespread, its effect more pronounced, and methods to reduce it improved. However, the EPA proposal fails to reflect the severity of the situation and allows a weak cap-and-trade system. Under this cap- and-trade rule, many plants will never have to install controls if they choose to simply buy their way out by purchasing allowances from other plants. The issue of mercury toxins is beyond dollars and cents. Mercury, contained in coal emitted through smokestacks into the atmosphere as the coal is burned, is transported to the air and carried downward for hundreds and hundreds of miles. It is carried by snow and rain back down to Earth into our communities, onto our streets, and around our schools. Inevitably, these toxins pollute our lakes, rivers, and streams. The mercury is then ingested by the fish and, in turn, consumers who eat fish harvested from these freshwater sources. The growing concentration of the amount of mercury has caused a significant problem, not only for Maine's seafood industry but our Nation's. The EPA issued an advisory about mercury and seafood sales in our country, and since March 2004 sales of tuna, for example, in America have declined by 10 percent. This has resulted in the revenue loss of more than $150 million to the industry. However, we cannot fault the consumers but, rather, our own failed Government policy. If EPA had followed the Clean Air Act and retained its 2000 decision, each utility unit would have been required to reduce mercury pollutants by 70 to 90 percent in 2008. I should point out that powerplants are the largest remaining unregulated source of mercury pollution in the United States--accounting for the 90,000 pounds of airborne mercury a year. EPA's own considerable research on the sources and effects of manmade mercury pollution confirms that mercury emissions are getting worse. To my dismay, the less stringent EPA approach will inevitably fail to protect either the health of our children or Maine's natural resources and the economies that depend on them. The EPA proposal, at its fundamental level, clearly is delinquent in protecting all Americans equally from the hazards of mercury pollution. Under these guidelines, a powerplant can buy its way out of mercury restrictions and continue to plague the surrounding population. Our commitment to our communities in America should be uniform, and thus our restriction of this neurotoxin should be consistent. We know for a fact that human ingestion of mercury causes grave neurological damage to young children, infants, and the unborn. Methylmercury is a known neurotoxin and development inhibitor in unborn babies. Children and fetuses are most susceptible because mercury can have a damaging effect on developing brains. Reports tell us that nearly 4.9 million women of childbearing age have elevated levels of mercury and that approximately 630,000 children born each year are at risk from mercury-related learning and developmental problems. I find these figures unacceptable. In fact, we all should. Neurotoxins are not commodities; neurotoxins are poison. I believe that these pollutants and poisons should not be traded in our society but, rather, should be significantly restricted and reduced. It is our duty to enact such a rule. I hope we will adopt the mercury resolution of disapproval. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate a proposal which was included in the hurricane supplemental bill at the request of the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense. I wholeheartedly supported the supplemental bill and the funding it would provide to the individuals, families, and small businesses that experienced so much suffering in this terrible tragedy. Their plight should not be prolonged by delays in delivery of much-needed assistance funding. However, I believe that this particular provision would seriously harm small businesses in the Gulf Coast region and all across America--by excluding them from Government contracts and subcontracts for the relief and rescue projects. While I appreciate the need to get supplies and services quickly in order to save lives, the provision at issue is not tailored to lifesaving, and we need to exercise caution in working around laws aimed at helping small business, in the rush to pass emergency appropriations. The OMB's proposal extends to hurricane relief and rescue operations that the emergency procurement authority previously approved by Congress for military contingency operations in cases of attack by the weapons of mass destruction, war, or national emergency. Most importantly, the proposal raises the so-called ``micro-purchase threshold'' to $250,000. These measures would abolish Small Business Act set-asides for U.S. small businesses and the Buy American Act preferences for U.S. manufacturers on all rescue and relief contracts for years to come, potentially undermine the Stafford Act preference for local business, individuals, and organizations in contracts for recovery from major disasters contained in the Stafford Act, and encourage waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal contracts and in the reconstruction efforts by drastically increasing the ability of low- level Government officials to make credit card charges. The micro-purchase threshold was created in the 1990s to enable Government officials to quickly make limited purchases with Government credit cards and without regards to competition, small business, or other preference requirements. Congress strictly limited the current micro-purchase threshold amounts to $2,500 for all acquisitions, except to $2,000 for certain construction projects and to $15,000 for U.S.- based military contingency operations and WMD response and recovery efforts. This increase in the micro-purchase threshold was carefully adopted by Congress just 2 years ago, in November 2003, in response to the 9/11 and the global war on terror. The 2003 increase was implemented subject to strict limitations to ensure that contracting accountability and small business requirements are not supplanted--limitations which are absent from the language in this bill. The OMB plan in this bill increases the micro-purchase threshold to $250,000, a hundredfold increase. Without appropriate protections, such a massive increase distorts Congressional intent for the micro- purchases and opens doors to greater credit card contracting abuse. Government purchase card abuse has been the subject of investigative and legislative actions by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and by the Senate Finance Committee. Indeed, the leadership of these Committees, including Chairmen Grassley and Collins as well as ranking member Lieberman, already made known their opposition to the OMB proposal. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the Federal Government could have saved $300 million a year by imposing greater accountability on the use of Government purchase cards. These losses stand to balloon along with the huge increases in credit card spending called for in this proposal. A massive expansion of the micro-purchase threshold could overwhelm the fragile accountability mechanisms for this program. Most importantly, in addition to the high potential for waste and abuse, raising the micro-purchase threshold from its current levels to $250,000 obliterates small business contracting set-asides for contracts that by law and by tradition have been going to small firms. The statutory ``small business reserve'' in the Small Business Act sets aside for small business concerns all Federal contracts in the amounts below $100,000 and above the micro-purchase threshold, typically, $2,500. Contracts at $100,000 or less are uniquely suitable for performance by small firms. Excluding them now makes no sense. Further, the DoD/OMB proposal for extension of the emergency procurement authority to Hurricane Katrina improperly expands the scope of this authority to future ``relief'' contracts and to contracts with only distant relevance to Hurricane Katrina. As I already mentioned, the emergency procurement authority established a micro-purchase threshold increase to $15,000, provided the purchases are ``directly related'' to military contingency operations or WMD recovery. Extension of this authority would take contracts ranging from $15,000 to $2,500 out of the statutory ``small business reserve'' under the Small Business Act. In addition, this authority would also allow large firms to exclude small businesses from subcontracts by treating all Katrina- related contracts as purchases of commercial items. Taking work away from small businesses as part of disaster relief is not the message we want to send. Federal small business contracts are a vital source of business and jobs creation for small firms. Prior to Katrina, small business in disaster-affected States used to received a significant boost from Federal contracts. Retaining, renewing, and enhancing these small business contracts will be critical for successful reconstruction of the Gulf Coast region. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003, Alabama small businesses received $2.05 billion in Federal contracts, including $191 million in construction contracts. Small businesses in the State of Mississippi received $419 million in Federal contracts, with over a quarter of that amount, $134 million, in construction contracts. Finally, Louisiana received $712 million in small business contracts, including $242 million in construction. Small business men and women in these States have the experience and the wherewithal to join hands in the relief and reconstruction of their communities. What they need is a chance to work and rebuild their businesses. We have an obligation to help the small business sector of the Gulf Coast. I am very concerned about the import of the OMB contracting provision, and I will work to ensure that this provision is limited and modified in future legislation to ensure that it provides the right balance between speed and fairness in Government contracts.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to make a statement explaining the removal of the Senator from Tennessee, Majority Leader Bill Frist, as a cosponsor of S. 1014, Supporting Our Patriotic Business Act of 2005. It was an inadvertent error my staff made when adding additional cosponsors to this bill. I apologize to Senator Frist for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused and want the record to reflect that it was an error on my part.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for the City of Saco, ME that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or deauthorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has suggested language that re- designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language, which I hope will be included in the Water Resources Development Act in this Congress, will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the City of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. It is my understanding that the two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for the City of Saco, ME that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or deauthorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has suggested language that re- designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language, which I hope will be included in the Water Resources Development Act in this Congress, will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the City of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. It is my understanding that the two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to extend my deepest sympathies and strongest possible support for the people of America's Gulf Coast region, which was devastated by the terrible forces of Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States, we continue our attempt to comprehend the magnitude of the losses that have occurred--most especially all those who have lost their lives, lost livelihoods, and virtually all their physical possessions. The scale of the destruction is most horrifically reflected in the faces of those we have seen over the past week--faces etched with an indelible and almost unimaginable sorrow, suffering, and burden, and their images have reverberated throughout a country in solidarity with their terrible plight. Indeed, there are colleagues in this very body who have endured horrendous loss, and my thoughts and prayers go out to them as well. In Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida lives have been forever transformed along with the landscape, as we have witnessed untold scenes of homes that no longer exist; floods that ravage entire neighborhoods and cities; fires that consume what remains of buildings, men, women, children, and the elderly seeking food, water, and medicine--as well as missing loved ones. The cities of New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulf Port, Pascagula, and so many others have sustained injuries almost beyond belief. America and the world have been stunned by the cruelty of the tragic effects of this storm. At the same time, we are also hearing the stories of those who have rushed to the aid of our fellow Americans in need--men and women of the National Guard and the U.S. Armed Services, paramedics, doctors, police men and women, volunteers from all walks of life. And as chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard, I especially thank the selfless commitment of the people of the Coast Guard, who have rescued at least 32,000 thousand individuals find have served with the greatest heroism and honor. To the people of the Gulf region: You do not stand alone in your pain and frustration. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that essential items, medical care, and shelter are provided in a timely fashion, wherever and whenever they are needed. I am pleased the Congress passed a $10.5 billion emergency spending bill to move the Gulf region toward recovery, and there should be no question that as additional resources are required, they will be provided. It is only with the full weight of the Federal Government that the entire region will not only endure, but recover. And as chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, I will leave no stone unturned in identifying resources and services that can help bring such a recovery to fruition. I also believe that, looking forward, it is critical to examine and assess what steps might have been taken not only to diminish the impact of the hurricane, but also to respond appropriately in its aftermath. We must determine how we, as a nation, could have been better prepared. We owe that not only to those who will face potential catastrophes in the future, but also to all those who have died and those suffering today from Katrina's swathe of devastation. In the end, no human or natural act can deprive Americans of their unyielding and singularly determined spirit, and that truth has once again demonstrated itself in the hearts of the people of the Gulf Coast as well as the millions of acts of kindness and compassion that have manifested themselves throughout America in Katrina's wake. We also appreciate the outpouring of sympathy and support expressed by many nations and their people throughout the world. Grief and humanity, hope and caring truly know no political boundaries. This is a tragedy for all of humankind, a wound to our world, but it is one from which we will, in time, recover to the fullest extent possible. All of our will and our resources as one of the wealthiest nations on earth must and will be brought to bear over what will be a long but ultimately triumphant process of reclaiming our Gulf Coast towns and cities for the future. As we all work toward that common goal, we do so hand-in-hand with all those for whom we are praying and keeping in our thoughts. While the hurricane's winds and rain have long since dissipated, the collective concern and strength of this Nation continues ever onward-- unbroken, undaunted, unflagging. Our message to the people of the Gulf Coast is both simple and solemn: Your country will be with you every step of the way, and that is our promise to you in this most difficult and desperate of times and forever forward from this day. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have the support of many of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to introduce legislation to help rural America transition to an age of digital television. Television is an important media outlet for local news, weather and information. Years ago, it was decided that the United States should transition to a higher standard of television service. Digital television is much more than simply a sharper picture; it allows for an increase in the number of channels, more efficient use of spectrum and many new features for consumers. As the Senate considers broader digital television transition legislation, it is important not to leave rural America behind. The bill I introduce today is aimed to assist translator stations and low power analog stations. Translator stations are small stations that repeat a signal from full power stations so that the signal may be reached in remote areas. Low power analog TV stations are television stations that typically serve smaller, rural communities. While translators and low power analog TV stations are located in many parts of the country, most are concentrated in rural areas, including many parts of Maine. There has been a long time understanding that low power stations would not be a part of the full power digital television transition. This understanding, however, does not mean that Congress can simply look away. We must ensure that low power stations have the necessary time and adequate funds to move into the digital age. The Digital Low Power Television Transition Act aims to address these needs. First, the bill I am introducing today puts a deadline for the low power digital televison transition four years out from whatever the hard date is that Congress ultimately decides for the full power digital television transition. Full power stations have had years to transition to digital. Low power stations have yet to even receive their digital allocations, and therefore need additional time to upgrade equipment. This delay will also allow consumers in rural areas to continue to use analog television sets to receive over-the-air signals until digital television equipment becomes more prevalent in small town consumer electronics stores. Second, the Digital Translator and Low Power Television Transition bill establishes a grant program within the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, NTIA, to help defray the cost of upgrading translators and low power television stations from analog to digital. This money for the grant program would come from a trust fund set up with proceeds of the spectrum auctions that will take place because of the full power digital television transition. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, estimates that approximately $100 million will be needed for the 4474 translators and 2071 low power analog and to upgrade. The trust fund's size reflects the FCC's estimate. The goal of this Act is to assist the rural, low power stations without interrupting the greater digital televison transition. Because of the secondary status of translators and low power stations, the auction of full power analog spectrum will remain unaffected. These stations do play an important role in rural communities, therefore this bill calls upon the FCC to report to Congress on the status of translators and low power analog. This bill is not meant to be a comprehensive approach to the digital television transition. It is merely a solution to one of the many questions Congress will face this Congress. Rural America deserves the same benefits that digital televison will bring that will be available in urban areas. This Act gives translators, low power analog and Class A stations the assistance they need to smoothly transition to digital.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your dedicated work in defending the Senate-passed Energy bill language in conference, particularly concerning the energy efficiency tax incentives. For the first time, there will be energy efficiency tax incentives for commercial buildings for each of the three energy-using systems of the building--the envelope, the heating, cooling and water heating system, and lighting. Each is eligible for one-third of the $1.80 per square foot tax incentive if it meets its share of the whole-building savings goal. This will apply to buildings that cut energy use by 50 percent, an ambitious but very important target as buildings account for 35 percent of our Nation's energy usage, and commercial buildings are a large part of that percentage. My concern is that, because the eligibility period was cut back from the end of 2010 to just 2 years, this shorter window of effectiveness could undercut the program, since the time it takes to design and construct these large buildings and skyscrapers could take longer than the 2 years of eligibility. This is especially a concern as the incentives for commercial buildings is one of the fastest ways in the entire Energy bill that we can cut down the Nation's energy usage in the short term.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Care Act of 2005, which will serve to improve access to mental health treatment and remove an unfunded mandate on our private mental health treatment centers. I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with several of my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Lincoln, and Collins, who share my belief that we must improve access to treatment for many of the 18.5 million Americans who are afflicted with a mental health disorder. Our bill will move a step closer to achieving this goal by requiring the Medicaid program to provide reimbursement to private mental health facilities that receive patients under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA. EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency care to patients, regardless of their ability to pay. However, this stands in conflict with Medicaid law, which in most cases prohibits payment for psychiatric treatment for people between the ages of 21 to 65 years. Our legislation will remedy that situation by providing Medicaid coverage for emergency treatment for mental illness, thus expanding access for acute psychiatric care and ensuring that patients with mental disorders receive the assistance they vitally need in a timely fashion. Under current law, Medicaid payment for psychiatric treatment for patients between the ages of 21 and 65 years is restricted to hospitals that have an in house psychiatric ward. If a patient seeks care from a private psychiatric hospital or is transferred to a private facility from a community hospital, Medicaid does not provide reimbursement due to the so-called Institutions for Mental Disease, IMD, exclusion. In comparison, if the same patient seeks care under EMTALA from a hospital because of a physical ailment, Medicaid provides coverage regardless of the type of facility that provides the treatment. I have therefore joined together with Senator Conrad, Senator Lincoln, and Senator Collins to introduce legislation that will require Medicaid to pay for the cost of care associated with emergency psychiatric treatment necessary to comply with EMTALA. No longer will private entities be required to shoulder the burden of this Federal mandate, and no longer will Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries go without access to necessary and appropriate emergency care. This bipartisan legislation has been carefully crafted with input from both the provider and beneficiary communities to ensure that assistance is directed to those who are most in need and to ensure that the coverage only extends to people who require emergency treatment. The definition in the EMTALA statute of an emergency is straightforward for psychiatric patients. Patients must present as a danger to themselves or others--for example, as being suicidal or threatening physical harm to others. Our bill also offers a targeted and low-cost solution to ease the crisis in emergency departments. Emergency department overcrowding is a growing and severe problem in the United States, and dedicated physicians and nurses who work in emergency rooms are reaching a breaking point where they may not have the resources or surge capacity to respond effectively. Patients often face a long wait in the emergency room, sometimes for days, because there is no bed or other appropriate setting available. Tens of thousands of dollars every day are being spent inefficiently on extended treatment in emergency rooms that is not the most appropriate or clinically effective care. This crisis in emergency departments impacts everyone's access to lifesaving care. According to a May 2005 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of annual emergency department visits increased 26 percent over a 10-year period, from 90.3 million in 1993 to 113.9 million visits in 2003--an average increase of more than 2 million visits per year. During the same time, the number of hospital emergency departments decreased by more than 12 percent, resulting in a greater number of visits to emergency departments that remain open. How do these problems affect emergency care for all of us? Overcrowded emergency rooms result in reduced availability of physicians, nurses, and healthcare staff; fewer available examination areas and beds; longer waits for patients and their families; and hospitals more frequently having to divert patients by ambulance to other hospitals. The existing situation is not only jeopardizing access to emergency rooms and treatment but ultimately, in many cases, it is overwhelming the criminal justice system. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that, on average, 16 percent of inmates in local jails suffer from a mental illness, and in Maine, the National Alliance for the Mentally III, NAMI, an advocacy group for persons with mental illness, estimates that figure is as high as 50 percent. In my home state of Maine, 65,000 people have a severe mental illness but with the severe shortage of psychiatric beds in the State, many people go without treatment. We must take action to provide the mentally ill with better access to care, and we must start by ensuring that Medicaid reimburses the facilities that provide treatment. Passing the Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Care Act and providing Medicaid coverage for emergency psychiatric treatment in both general and psychiatric hospitals will accomplish several goals. First, and most importantly, it will result in better psychiatric emergency care for patients. Second, it will result in more efficient and effective use of both Federal and State Medicaid dollars. Third, by resolving the current conflict in Federal law between EMTALA requirements and the Medicaid IMD exclusion from reimbursement, the bill will enable freestanding psychiatric hospitals to receive reimbursement for Medicaid psychiatric patients on the same basis as general hospitals and help preserve the viability of these hospitals. We have received strong support from a number of leading national mental health and medical associations who confirm the critical need for this legislation, including NAMI, the National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems. I am especially pleased to have also received endorsements from a number of Maine organizations, including the Maine Hospital Association, Spring Harbor Hospital, and NAMI Maine. This legislative change is vitally important to ensure that Medicaid patients with mental illness receive the right care at the right time in the right setting, instead of prolonged stays in emergency rooms and in hospital settings without psychiatric specialty care. The cost of achieving a more efficient, effective, and clinically appropriate care system for psychiatric emergencies is small and well worth it. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bill. I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.