Olympia Snowe

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. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill, the Small Business Lending Improvement Act of 2005, which I have introduced today to provide small businesses with easier access to loans and to increase efficiency in the Small Business Administration's largest loan program, the 7(a) program, which provided $12.7 billion in small business loans in 2004. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am committed to supporting our Nation's Main Street small business community by increasing its access to capital. This legislation will reform a cumbersome SBA lender licensing process that does not provide our small businesses with the most efficient means of accessing the capital they must have to start and sustain their firms. The bill would allow the SBA's 7(a) loan program to better capitalize on the demonstrated potential small business have to create jobs and economic growth. As our Nation continues to prosper from economic growth, low inflation, and low unemployment, we should not forget the critical role played by our small businesses. Without strong and successful small businesses, our prosperity would not be what it is today. Under current law, the most prolific lenders in the SBA's 7(a) loan program can participate in the ``Preferred Lender Program'' (PLP Program), which allows them to use their own processing facilities and therefore both increases lenders' efficiency and reduces costs for the SBA. However, PLP lenders are required to apply for PLP status in each of the 71 SBA districts nationwide to obtain PLP status in that district, and they must re-apply each year in each district. This is extremely inefficient and wasteful, and creates enormous unnecessary administrative costs. Section 2 of this bill would allow qualifying lenders to participate in the PLP Program on a nationwide basis after just one licensing process. This provision was in S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, which I introduced in 2003 and which the Senate approved unanimously in September 2003. This provision would drastically reduce administrative costs and would standardize the operation of the PLP program. A National Preferred Lenders Program would eliminate the inefficiencies and cost of applying for PLP status in each district, and would increase the ease with which loans are made to small businesses, thereby improving small businesses' access to capital. Competition among lenders for small business customers would increase, increasing financing alternatives and lowering costs for small businesses. In addition to simplifying licensing processes for both lenders and the SBA, the bill would allow the SBA's lender oversight to be done more efficiently and effectively, on a national basis. The current process of having to renew licenses in each district is extremely time- consuming and administratively burdensome for the lenders and the SBA. A National Preferred Lenders Program could remedy the inefficiencies and cost of applying for PLP status in each district and save a tremendous amount of taxpayer dollars. Section 3 of the act increases the maximum size of a 7(a) loan to $3 million, from the current $2 million, and increase the maximum size of a 7(a) guarantee to $2.25 million, from the current $1.5 million. This would maintain the maximum 75 percent guarantee. Small businesses' financing needs are increasing and, especially with the high cost of real estate and new equipment, it is appropriate to respond to those needs by offering larger loans. In the SBA's 504 Loan Program, loans may now be as large as $10 million, with $4 million guaranteed, for manufacturing projects, $5 million (with $2 million guaranteed) for loans that serve an enumerated public policy goal (such as rural development), and $3.75 million (with $1.5 million guaranteed) for all other ``regular'' 504 Program loans. Thus, this increase in 7(a) Program loans to $3 million would bring 7(a) loans closer in size to 504 Program loans, while still leaving 7(a) loans smaller than 504 Program loans. Section 4 of the bill increases the program's authorization level to $18 billion for fiscal year 2006, instead of the $17 billion authorized for fiscal year 2006 in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, enacted in December 2004. The program is on pace to achieve loan volume of between $14 and $15 billion in fiscal year 2005, and this provision would allow the program adequate ability to grow unimpeded in fiscal year 2006, especially if the maximum loan size is increased. Section 5 of the bill requires the SBA to implement an alternative size standard, in addition to the program's current standard, for the 7(a) program. The SBA would create an alternative size standard for the 7(a) program, as it has already done for the 504 program, that considers a business's net worth and income. This provision would bring the 7(a) program into conformity with the 504 Program. This provision was also in S. 1375 in the 108th Congress, passed unanimously by the Senate in 2003. Currently, in the 7(a) program a small business's eligibility to receive a loan is determined by reference to a multipage chart that has different size standards for every industry that can be very confusing, especially for small lenders that do not make many 7(a) loans. In the 504 Program, however, lenders can use either the industry-specific standards or an ``alternative size standard'' that the SBA created, which simply says a small business is eligible for a loan if it has gross income of less than $7 million or net worth of less than $2 million. This would simplify the 7(a) lending process and provide small businesses with a streamlined procedure for determining if they are eligible for 7(a) loans, and it would conform the standards used by the 7(a) and 504 programs. It would make the program far more accessible to small businesses and small lenders. All of these improvements to the SBA's largest loan program will support our national goal of building a vibrant and growing economy. Small businesses are the heart of our economy, and this bill will help to improve small businesses' economic prospects. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Payment Adjustment To Community Health Centers, PATCH, Act of 2005. I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman. Two years ago we introduced a more comprehensive version of this legislation, S. 654. I am happy to report that many of the provisions in S. 654 were included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. The bill I am introducing today reflects two key provisions which remain the priorities of our community health centers. This legislation will improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to primary care services and preventive treatments by increasing access to Community Health Centers. Local, non-profit, commnnity-owned health centers, also known as Federally Qualified Health Center, FCHQs, furnish essential primary and preventive care services to low income and medically underserved communities. In many cases, community health centers are the only source of primary and preventive services to which Medicare beneficiaries have access. This is especially true for people living in America's medically underserved rural areas. For nearly 40 years, the national network of health centers has provided high-quality, affordable primary care and preventive services. Community health centers are located in areas where care is needed but scarce, and they improve access to care for millions of Americans regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Their costs of care rank among the lowest, and they reduce the need for more expensive emergency, in-patient, and specialty care, saving billions for dollars for taxpayers. Community health centers are increasingly becoming important providers of primary care and prevent1ve services to seniors--as well as providers of on-site dental, pharmaceu ical, and mental health services. In short, community health centers provide the ease of ``one- stop health care shopping,'' meaning that seniors, instead of moving from location to location to receive comprehensive primary hearh services, can usually receive all of their essential primary care in one place. The PATCH Act will ensure that community health centers can fully participate in the Medicare program and provide seniors with these vital services. Ensuring that Medicare pays its fair share is important to the stability of community health centers. While 17 percent of health center patients in Maine are Medicare beneficiaries, the Medicare program pays only 78 cents on the dollar for the health center costs incurred in delivering comprehensive primary care services to them. For health centers to remain a viable part of the health care delivery system, we must make changes. Over the last 15 years, Congress has made many improvements to the Medicare program through the addition of new primary and preventive benefits, including screening mammograms, pap smears, colorectal and prostate cancer screenings, flu and pneumococcal vaccinations, bone mass measurement, and glucose monitoring and nutrition therapy for diabetics. However, Congress has not updated the Medicare law to add these crucial services to the health center reimbursement package, so health centers are denied payment for these services when provided to Medicare beneficiaries. This lack of reimbursement has caused significant losses for health centers every time they deliver these services to Medicare patients. Our bill will add these essential services to the health center package of benefits so that they can receive payment for these services. The Medicare law has also neglected to include health care for the homeless grantees as Federal qualified health centers. The bill would also restore these centers for recognition within the Medicare statute. Our legislation is strongly supported by the National Association of Community Health Centers, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The PATCH Act makes these two technical and straightforward changes to the Medicare program to ensure that Community Health Centers can fully participate in Medicare and provide seniors with these vital primary and preventive services. These changes are vitally important in my state of Maine and also to health centers throughout our nation. By making these two straightforward changes, we will be able to enhance the care that all Medicare beneficiaries receive, especially those living in rural and medically underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the bill.

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Payment Adjustment To Community Health Centers, PATCH, Act of 2005. I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman. Two years ago we introduced a more comprehensive version of this legislation, S. 654. I am happy to report that many of the provisions in S. 654 were included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. The bill I am introducing today reflects two key provisions which remain the priorities of our community health centers. This legislation will improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to primary care services and preventive treatments by increasing access to Community Health Centers. Local, non-profit, commnnity-owned health centers, also known as Federally Qualified Health Center, FCHQs, furnish essential primary and preventive care services to low income and medically underserved communities. In many cases, community health centers are the only source of primary and preventive services to which Medicare beneficiaries have access. This is especially true for people living in America's medically underserved rural areas. For nearly 40 years, the national network of health centers has provided high-quality, affordable primary care and preventive services. Community health centers are located in areas where care is needed but scarce, and they improve access to care for millions of Americans regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Their costs of care rank among the lowest, and they reduce the need for more expensive emergency, in-patient, and specialty care, saving billions for dollars for taxpayers. Community health centers are increasingly becoming important providers of primary care and prevent1ve services to seniors--as well as providers of on-site dental, pharmaceu ical, and mental health services. In short, community health centers provide the ease of ``one- stop health care shopping,'' meaning that seniors, instead of moving from location to location to receive comprehensive primary hearh services, can usually receive all of their essential primary care in one place. The PATCH Act will ensure that community health centers can fully participate in the Medicare program and provide seniors with these vital services. Ensuring that Medicare pays its fair share is important to the stability of community health centers. While 17 percent of health center patients in Maine are Medicare beneficiaries, the Medicare program pays only 78 cents on the dollar for the health center costs incurred in delivering comprehensive primary care services to them. For health centers to remain a viable part of the health care delivery system, we must make changes. Over the last 15 years, Congress has made many improvements to the Medicare program through the addition of new primary and preventive benefits, including screening mammograms, pap smears, colorectal and prostate cancer screenings, flu and pneumococcal vaccinations, bone mass measurement, and glucose monitoring and nutrition therapy for diabetics. However, Congress has not updated the Medicare law to add these crucial services to the health center reimbursement package, so health centers are denied payment for these services when provided to Medicare beneficiaries. This lack of reimbursement has caused significant losses for health centers every time they deliver these services to Medicare patients. Our bill will add these essential services to the health center package of benefits so that they can receive payment for these services. The Medicare law has also neglected to include health care for the homeless grantees as Federal qualified health centers. The bill would also restore these centers for recognition within the Medicare statute. Our legislation is strongly supported by the National Association of Community Health Centers, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The PATCH Act makes these two technical and straightforward changes to the Medicare program to ensure that Community Health Centers can fully participate in Medicare and provide seniors with these vital primary and preventive services. These changes are vitally important in my state of Maine and also to health centers throughout our nation. By making these two straightforward changes, we will be able to enhance the care that all Medicare beneficiaries receive, especially those living in rural and medically underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today not only to cast my support for the conference report to H.R. 6, an energy bill that touches on nearly every aspect of domestic energy production, consumption, and savings, but especially to compliment Energy and Natural Resources chair, Senator Domenici, for once again showing what a truly superb leader he is. He and Senator Grassley, chair of the Finance Committee, have been successful in reaching bipartisan agreement on comprehensive energy legislation--something that we have not been able to do since 1992, even though we have actively attempted to do so in the last three Congresses. I would have written a more ambitious bill that would have more aggressively reduced our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, but this is an improvement over the status quo. What this legislation does include is essential energy efficiency and conservation tax incentives that will make our Nation's energy policy more balanced. As a Nation, we must recognize that we must do more than just produce our way out of an energy crisis, we have an obligation to consume less as well. For instance, by improving fuel economy standards of our cars and trucks, we could have saved our Nation 1 million barrels of oil a day, as Senator Feinstein and I have attempted to do for these last several years. Also, by keeping Senator Bingaman's provisions for Climate Change and Renewable Portfolio Standards in the conference report, we would have had a much stronger bill to address our future energy, environmental, and economic needs. But this bipartisan energy legislation is a reflection of what was possible. These important issues will not go away, we will be addressing them another day--and in the not-too-distant-future, I will predict. While the report came out of conference far from perfect, the question we need to ask ourselves at the end of the day is, Does the legislation begin to take the Nation forward for responsible energy policy to help decrease our dependence on foreign oil from the most volatile areas of the globe as we begin the 21st century? And this bill does take at least that small step forward, especially for provisions I believe in--greater energy efficiencies and energy from renewable sources that begin to wean the Nation off of its thirst for oil. For instance, I am extremely pleased that I could secure $1.7 billion through the energy efficiency and conservation provisions from my original bills, the Efficient Energy Through Certified Technologies and Electricity Reliability, or EFFECTER, Act of 2005. I would like to express thanks for assistance over the past 5 years in drafting these energy efficiency tax incentives to Dr. David B. Goldstein of NRDC, a 2002 MacArthur fellowship winner who has worked on energy efficiency and energy policy since the early 1970s, both domestically and internationally. Also provided are tax incentives from the Lieberman-Snowe fuel cell bill that provide a 30-percent business energy credit for the purchase of qualified fuel cell power plants for businesses, along with a 10- percent credit for the purchase of stationary microturbine power plants. A fuel cell is a device that uses any hydrogen-rich fuel, such as natural gas, methane, or propane, to generate electricity and thermal energy through an electrochemical process. Since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce almost no air pollution and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas blamed for climate change. The tax incentive will accelerate commercialization of a wide range of fuel cell technologies for a distributed source of power. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked with Chairman Grassley to also secure $2.7 billion in alternative energy production tax credits in this energy legislation. Included for the first time is a tax credit for biomass, which is extremely important to those who work at our Maine biomass plants, which provide good paying jobs in rural areas all over Maine. In addition, the tax credit extension for wind power is essential for wind projects in Maine, for instance the one planned in Mars Hill. This legislation will decrease the project's costs by 30 percent. Also included in H.R. 6 is the permanent authorization of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve that was established in 2000. The NHOR holds 2 million barrels of emergency fuel stocks stored at commercial tank farms that would give Northeast consumers adequate supplies for approximately 10 days, the time required for ships to carry heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New York Harbor. The reserve is essential for cold winter States like Maine--especially at a time when fuel prices continue to be sky high. While we are in the midst of a very warm summer, our winters are never that far off, and this provision ensures that emergency fuel stocks are made available in times of need. And speaking of cold weather, the conference report reauthorizes the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, or LIHEAP, until 2007, and reauthorizes State weatherization grant and energy programs at $2.1 billion through fiscal year 2008. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important these programs are to my State of Maine where winters come early and can stay well past the start of spring. There is an extension 5 years for my original legislation, the National Oilheat Research Act; NORA which expired in February. Also, the conference report puts in place enforceable electricity reliability standards that were included in my EFFECTER Act and other bills that would further improvements in the electricity grid at a time that the surging demand continues to stress the Nation's power grid. One only needs to recall that in August 2003, a big Northeast blackout disrupted service to 50 million people, and 2 years earlier, soaring prices and isolated blackouts rolled across California. One of the International Climate Change Taskforce, ICCT recommendations, for which I am a cochair with the Right Honorable Stephen Byers of the United Kingdom, called for incentives for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle; IGCC, a process that allows CO2 to be extracted for storage more easily and at less cost than from conventional coal-burning plants. Clean coal technology helps to address climate change by capturing CO2 rather than allowing it to be released into the atmosphere and has immediate benefits health benefits in terms of reduced emissions of toxic pollutants that cause respiratory and cardiovascular illness. The bill provides a 20-percent credit for clean coal power plants for IGCC plants while other advanced clean-coal projects get the 15-percent credit. There disappointments to me in this bill, most certainly, as they could affect my State. In particular was the vote loss that would have given States equal say on the siting of Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, siting decisions, but the language in H.R. 6 has been enhanced to give the States a more consultative role, even though FERC still has exclusive jurisdiction. A pre-NEPA National Environmental Policy Act filing process is included in the bill so the FERC will have to work with States on problems before moving any projects forward. Also included is a cost-sharing provision calling for both the industry and communities to share the cost for emergency response plans. Originally, only the communities had to pay for these plans. I will continue to work to ensure that States have greater authority over LNG siting decisions. I believe this is clearly a States rights issue--and given how contentious these decisions are, it only makes sense to have State input into the process. As I have said before, this is a Liquified Natural Gas facility siting we are talking about, not a Wal-Mart. Another issue I plan to actively work on with my colleagues from other coastal States is the deletion of a provision that calls for an inventory of oil reserves off the Outer Continental Shelf. I believe those of us from coastal States did everything in our power to strip this potentially environmentally dangerous provision out of the Energy bill. Our amendment during Senate consideration of the Energy bill-- despite our best efforts--failed. We did everything we could to have this provision removed--we presented our case to our colleagues and had a fair up-or-down vote. It is a terrible policy that imperils our fragile coastal ecosystems and fisheries around Georges Bank, a veritable nursery for sea life. Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a step forward as we begin the 21st century and great energy needs that will have to be met, and we continue to craft national energy policy--we have only begun to do so with many steps ahead of us to take. I thank the Chair.

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 bring to the Senate's attention a troubling development in our efforts to support the reunification of Cyprus. I have recently learned that the State Department is encouraging members of Congress and their staffs to initiate certain visits to the country through an airport in the illegally occupied area of the island--an airport that is not authorized by the Republic of Cyprus as a legal port of entry. In fact, the airport is built on property that was expropriated from its lawful owners following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. As you may know, Cyprus was forcibly divided by an invasion of Turkish troops more than 30 years ago. Today, the United States and the world community recognize that the Turkish invasion was illegal, and that the Republic of Cyprus, which controls \2/3\ of the island, is the only legitimate government of Cyprus. For years, as reflected in our domestic law and echoed in several U.N. Security Council Resolutions, U.S. foreign policy has refused to give either recognition or direct assistance to the self-declared administrative authority in the occupied area, the so-called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' Indeed, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended following the Turkish invasion, has established that the United States supports a free government for Cyprus, the withdrawal of all Turkish forces from Cyprus, and the reunification of the island communities. On the specific matter of flights into Cyprus, the U.S. is bound by the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which both the U.S. and Cyprus are signatories. The Chicago Convention provides that ``[t]he contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory,'' including designation of official ports of entry. The Republic of Cyprus's sovereignty over the entire territory of Cyprus has been recognized and reaffirmed by numerous U.N. Security Council Resolutions as well as long-standing U.S. policy. Because the Republic of Cyprus has never authorized direct flights into the airports in the occupied area, and because it has not designated these airports as official ports of entry, entering the country through these airports is a direct violation of the Chicago Convention. Simply put, our State Department should not be authorizing, encouraging, or even condoning such a blatant violation of international law. Moreover, flights into an occupied airport violate local Cypriot law. If Cypriots visit the United States, they cannot just land a plane in the middle of the country--they must land at an airport that is an immigration and customs point of entry. We would rightly object if a Cypriot landed at an unauthorized airport in our country, and we should not be encouraging Americans to do so in Cyprus. Over the past year, I believe the administration has been playing fast and loose with U.S. policy toward Cyprus, and has, at times, been less than forthcoming to me and others who are concerned with the viability of our efforts to facilitate reunification of the island. In late October 2004, officials from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration--over the protests of the Government of Cyprus-- conducted an inspection of the airport at Tymbou, which is one of the airports in the occupied area. When I expressed my concern to the State Department that such a visit was not appropriate because flights into that airport would violate international and Cypriot law and are inconsistent with U.S. law, the Department assured me that it was not changing its policy toward Cyprus. Instead, I was told that ``the visit . . . was a liaison visit to conduct a general review of the aviation security posture and was fully consistent with the TSA's mandate to promote international aviation security.'' It now appears that this visit may have been an early step toward encouraging Members of Congress and staff to land at this illegal airport. This past June, Members of Congress travelled, at the behest and funding of a Turkish Study Group, to occupied Cyprus and arrived at an occupied airport. Concerned that the State Department was permitting a blatant violation of international law and domestic Cypriot law, I raised this issue with the Secretary of State. I have now received a reply letter from Mr. Matthew Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, which I will submit for the Record. The letter indicates that the State Department has ``authorize[d] U.S. Government officials to travel directly to northern Cyprus using tourist passports.'' It further states, ``[w]e have taken great care to ensure that our steps are consistent with U.S. and international law. Neither U.S. nor international law prohibits U.S. citizens from traveling directly to the area administered by Turkish Cypriots. . . . In fact, courts in the Republic of Cyprus have explicitly refused to penalize Greek Cypriots who have chosen to so travel.'' This position misses the mark on several levels. First, as I explained earlier, the Chicago Convention--to which the U.S. is bound-- bars flights into a country's territory without the country's consent. Cyprus simply has not consented, and thus these flights are flatly inconsistent with applicable international agreements. Second, although international law does not penalize individuals for taking such unauthorized flights, that point is irrelevant--the Chicago Convention is directed at States, not individuals. Third, there can be no doubt that such trips are suspect--even the State Department seems to admit they cannot be undertaken on an official government passport. And finally, the decision by the government of Cyprus not to prosecute those who make illegal landings is a gesture of restraint, designed to promote the freedom of movement among the two communities. It is absurd to use this commendable restraint as a justification for encouraging further violations of the law. As justification, Mr. Reynolds stated that ``we have taken [these] steps in support of the U.N. Secretary General's call on the international community to ease the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.'' I agree this is a noble cause in principle, but it must be pursued in a way that is consistent with international norms, local Cypriot law, and broader U.S. and international efforts to bring together the two communities on the divided island. Several U.N. Security Council Resolutions--which the Secretary General's remarks did nothing to abrogate--confirm the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. Moreover, the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots is already being addressed effectively by the ongoing economic support and confidence-building measures sponsored or supported by the Republic of Cyprus. Flights that conflict directly with international and Cypriot law and divide the two communities on Cyprus serve only to discourage the government of Cyprus from undertaking such positive measures. Moreover, there is literally no reason to encourage such flights--the government of Cyprus permits, and is even prepared in appropriate circumstances to facilitate, free passage to the occupied territory for those who arrive at a legal airport of entry. Cyprus joined the European Union in May 2004, and the EU has been very active on resolving the Cyprus problem, from providing a forum for resolving the dispute with Turkey to proposing direct economic assistance to the Turkish-occupied area. It is interesting to note, however, that the EU members respect Cyprus sovereignty--not one EU member country flies into the occupied airports. It is inappropriate for the U.S. to get ahead of the EU on the resolution of this conflict within its territory. I hope that my colleagues and their staffs who may be asked to visit Cyprus through an occupied airport will note the concerns I address here today. I would respectfully ask them to consider whether they think it is appropriate for a member of the Cypriot legislature to visit the United States through an illegal point of entry. I would also ask them to consider why the State Department has indicated that travel to occupied Cyprus should not be on an official passport or in an official capacity. I also urge members to read the Chicago Convention and the U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus to see that these actions are in direct contravention to our international commitments. And I ask them to consider whether it is appropriate for a U.S. official to land at an airport that was built on land illegally taken from its lawful owners following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus. While I have the floor, I would like to take a moment to review all the positive developments that we are witnessing in Cyprus, which continue despite the administration's divisive actions. It is undeniable that the situation in Cyprus is moving forward. The Republic of Cyprus has proposed measures to open new crossing points along the cease-fire lines; withdraw military forces from sensitive areas; increase the ability of Turkish Cypriot-owned trucks, tourist buses and taxis to cross the Green Line that divides Cyprus; increase trade across the Green Line, and open up ports to greatly facilitate trade. Further, the Republic of Cyprus is unilaterally clearing all land mines from the National Guard's minefields in the buffer zone. The Republic of Cyprus is also ensuring the economic development in the occupied area. Since April 2003 (when the Turkish military relaxed its movement restrictions) there have been more than 2.3 million border crossing by Cypriots into the occupied area. These visits have contributed more than $57 million to the economy of occupied Cyprus. In 2003 and 2004, the Republic of Cyprus paid more than $43 million in social insurance for Cypriots in the occupied area. Turkish Cypriots have been provided by the Republic of Cyprus with more than $9 million in free hospital and medical care, and more than $343 million in free electricity. The Republic of Cyprus does not isolate its citizens living in the occupied area--more than 63,000 have been issued Republic of Cyprus birth certificates, more than 57,000 have been issued Republic of Cyprus identity cards, and more than 32,000 have been issued Republic of Cyprus passports. It is also important to remember that the U.S. and Cyprus have always enjoyed a strong relationship. We have worked together on terrorism, the war in Iraq, suppressing money laundering, and other initiatives. For instance, in the lead up to the war in Iraq, Cyprus approved overflight rights for U.S. and other Coalition military aircraft as well as use of Cypriot airports. Important areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Cyprus are spelled out by the U.S.- Cyprus Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. The treaty has been in force since September 2002 and facilitates bilateral cooperation in the fight against global terrorism, organized crime, drug-trafficking and related violent crimes. Cyprus is the first European Nation to sign on to President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, which provides for shipping inspections and intergovernmental cooperation that is designed to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The addition of Cyprus to the PSI is particularly significant because Cyprus has the sixth largest commercial shipping fleet in the world. It is plain that Cyprus and the United States share common goals and common values. This is a critical time for Cyprus. The two communities of Cyprus are moving together, their economies and peoples forming links like never before. The actions of the U.S. must encourage and foster reunification, not push the communities apart with divisive actions that challenge the sovereignty of the legitimate government of Cyprus. All Americans, whether officials from the administration or from this body, should educate themselves about these important issues before considering a trip to Cyprus though an illegal port of entry. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally Herger, in reforming the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the amount of new investment a business can expense. This bill is a critical incentive for the small business sector of our economy to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. We can never minimize the role that small businesses play in our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, provide nearly 75 percent of the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the only ``small'' aspect of small business. The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality and uniquely American innovation of the small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout our country. It will make permanent the provisions in Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than depreciate it over a period of years. As the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am responding today to the repeated requests from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation for greater expensing of new equipment. By making permanent the current expensing limit of $100,000 and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more equipment purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 6, 7 or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise be forced to spend complying with complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment contributes to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to long-term economic growth and job creation. Second, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be made permanent at $400,000 in new equipment purchases. This will occur at the same time small business capital investment pumps more money into the many sectors of the economy. My bill is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. Small businesses are always at the forefront of our national economic recoveries and our national economic booms. This bill strengthens their ability to lead the way. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally Herger, in reforming the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the amount of new investment a business can expense. This bill is a critical incentive for the small business sector of our economy to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and most important, create jobs. We can never minimize the role that small businesses play in our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, provide nearly 75 percent of the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the only ``small'' aspect of small business. The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality and uniquely American innovation of the small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout our country. It will make permanent the provisions in Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than depreciate it over a period of years. As the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am responding today to the repeated requests from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation for greater expensing of new equipment. By making permanent the current expensing limit of $100,000 and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more equipment purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 6, 7 or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise be forced to spend complying with complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment contributes to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to long-term economic growth and job creation. Second, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be made permanent at $400,000 in new equipment purchases. This will occur at the same time small business capital investment pumps more money into the many sectors of the economy. My bill is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. Small businesses are always at the forefront of our national economic recoveries and our national economic booms. This bill strengthens their ability to lead the way. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this bill that would provide critical funding that is needed to preserve the operations of existing Women's Business Centers that currently serve women entrepreneurs in almost every State and territory. Women-owned businesses breathe new life into our economy, grow at twice the rate of all firms, and create jobs with pace-setting results. With 10.6 million women-owned businesses across the Nation, employing more than 19 million Americans, and generating nearly $2.5 trillion in revenue--indeed, they are nothing short of an economic powerhouse! Part of our job is to make sure that Government programs continue to help small and women-owned businesses. We can't afford to ignore, or reduce, the extraordinary contributions America's business women are making to our economy, our society, and our future. The Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center has been a tremendous resource to women-owned businesses across the Nation. Since the program was introduced through the Small Business Ownership Act of 1988, and made permanent in 1997, Congress has agreed seven times that this program is critical for women business owners. In fact, the program's unique training and counseling helped clients generate more than $235 million in revenue and create or retain over 6,500 jobs in 2003. This program clearly has a record of success, fostering job growth and providing American small businesses with the opportunity to thrive. If we look at the centers that are achieving the greatest impact, it is the established centers. The results of their outreach and one-on- one assistance has made it possible for the Small Business Administration to achieve its goals as it measures the success of the products and programs offered by these centers. However, 11 of our longest standing Women's Business Centers located in California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now face the possibility of closing their doors. The Federal Government has invested 10 years helping to establish these centers which, in turn, have helped women- owned businesses start and existing businesses grow. In accordance with outdated legislation, the SBA plans to award 92 competitive grants to regular and sustainable women's business centers in September with the fiscal year 2005 appropriations. However, our 11 longest standing centers will not be eligible to compete for these grants. This was not the intent of the Senate. Last Congress, the Senate agreed to transform the women's business center program into a 3-year competitive grant program which is reflected in my bill, S. 1375, The Small Business Administration's 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. While the House failed to pass their version of the bill, limited provisions of the bill were included in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus package. However, the women's business center provisions, among others, failed to make the omnibus bill and this program now operates under outdated legislation. This emergency legislation temporarily solves this problem and preserves our investment by simply making the women's sustainability grant funding available for these 11 existing centers only during fiscal year 2005. While we must fix the funding problem in the long- run, we also face a crisis today. With this legislation, existing centers that have been established for the longest period of time would be able to operate without disruption in funding and could continue the programs and services they currently offer. Moreover, this provision does not require any additional appropriations but only reallocates current funds. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take great pride in the fact that my own State of Maine leads the way for women-owned businesses. Today, there are more than 63,000 women-owned firms in Maine, employing over 75,000 Mainers and generating more than $9 billion in sales. We must all be committed to multiplying that story of success in every State in America. It is our duty to ensure that Americans have the necessary resources to start, grow and develop a business. I am committed to resolving the temporary funding crisis through this bill and I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure the long-term viability of the program for today's women entrepreneurs and those of tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have fought to ensure that small businesses across the country are treated fairly by Federal Government regulations. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, Federal agencies promulgate regulations without adequately addressing the economic impacts on small businesses. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, was enacted in 1980 and requires Federal Government agencies to propose rules that keep the regulatory burden at a minimum on small businesses. The RFA requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of proposed regulations when there is likely to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 1996, I was pleased to support, along with all of my colleagues, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, which amended the RFA. The intent of SBREFA was to further curtail the impact of burdensome or duplicative regulations on small businesses, by clarifying key RFA requirements. In September we will celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the RFA--a law that is largely working as Congress intended. Unfortunately, there remain a number of loopholes in the RFA that undermine its effectiveness in reducing these regulatory burdens. To close these loopholes, today I introduce the Regulatory Flexibility Reform Act of 2005, RFRA. This bill would ensure that Federal agencies conduct a complete analysis of the impacts of Federal regulations, thereby providing small businesses, which represent more than 99 percent of all firms in America and provide up to 75 percent of new jobs each year, with much needed regulatory relief. Under my legislation agencies must consider the indirect effects of an ``economic impact.'' Rules with indirect effects are currently exempt from RFA coverage according to well-established case law. This has serious consequences for small businesses. It means a Federal agency can avoid the various analyses required under the RFA by either requiring the States to regulate small entities or regulating an industry so rigorously that it has a negative trickle down impact on other industries. For example, rules can regulate a handful of large manufacturers in the same industry. Yet, a foreseeable, indirect effect of these rules--not presently considered under RFA analyses--is that small distributors would no longer have the right to sell the product produced by the larger manufacturers. In one case 100,000 small distributors were prevented from distributing their products. This indirect economic effect had a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses because their ability to compete in the marketplace--and create jobs--has and will continue to be harmed. In addition, this large loophole amounts to an ``unfunded mandate'' because many States do not have a requirement to conduct an RFA-type analysis of regulations. And even when there is such a statute on the books, those States frequently do not have the resources to conduct the analysis themselves. Worse still, for States with no requirement to conduct RFA-type analyses, the impact of the Federal regulation upon small businesses is never properly assessed either at the Federal or State level. This situation demands reform. Second, my legislation requires Federal agencies to consider comments provided by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. The SBA's Office of Advocacy does not receive the public attention it deserves. It should. In case after case it has been the last, best hope for small businesses faced with burdensome, duplicative and nonsensical Federal regulations. The Office of Advocacy serves two critical roles: No. 1, it represents small business' interests before the Federal government in regulatory matters, and No. 2, it conducts valuable research to further our understanding of the importance of small businesses and their job creating potential in our economy. My legislation would also amend the RFA to include a provision for agencies to specifically respond to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy. Codifying this necessary change would ensure that agencies give the proper deference to the Office of Advocacy, and hence, to the comments and concerns of small businesses. This is a straightforward and simple reform that could have major benefits. Finally, the RFRA would clarify the circumstances for a periodic review of Federal rules. If there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, a review would be required. It would also clarify the requirement that agencies review all 10-year-old rules to avoid confusion over which rules to review. In addition, agencies would be required to review rules every 10 years and not just the first 10 years. That's because rules can have unintended and negative consequences in our changing global, information-age economy. This legislation is absolutely necessary. I urge my colleagues to support my bill so we can ensure that our Nation's small businesses and their employees are provided with much needed regulatory relief. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, thank you for allowing the Senate to consider S. 361, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005. I must also thank my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, Inouye, Collins, Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Lott, and Cantwell. Their commitment to sound, science-based marine policy enabled us to craft this critical legislation that would do nothing less than revolutionize our understanding of the oceans. This bill, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, would create an integrated network of ocean monitoring systems around our Nation's coastlines, enabling comprehensive ocean data to be collected, compiled, and utilized in ways that enhance our safety, livelihoods, and overall quality of life. Although 140 million Americans live along our Nation's 95,000 miles of coastline, most of these coastal residents would be surprised to learn how little we know about what happens at and below the sea's surface. Marine scientists strive to collect data on the biological, physical, and chemical properties of the ocean, yet many of their questions about our complex marine environment remain unanswered. Moreover, there is a tremendous and growing need to translate data about ocean conditions into a form of information that people can use to improve their activities in and on the water--whether for marine science, resource management, and maritime transportation and safety. Having more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, my home State of Maine has a strong heritage linked to the sea. Our coastal communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources and other essential services provided to us by the Gulf of Maine, and for centuries our lives and livelihoods have required us to understand and adapt to ever-changing ocean conditions. This critical need for information was the driving force behind the innovation that led to the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS. A partnership of marine science institutions and ocean- dependent organizations launched GoMOOS in 2001 with the deployment of ten observation buoys in the Gulf of Maine. Since then, these buoys have taken nearly continuous measurements of wind speed, wave height, temperature, fog, currents, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and other key environmental variables. By modifying the instrumentation, scientists can gather other data from these platforms, and they can further link it to ocean information relayed by radar and satellites. GoMOOS compiles these data and makes it available to any ocean stakeholder via the internet, on a near real-time basis. Not only is this a tremendous public service to those affected by sea conditions, but it also provides a tremendous economic return--nearly $6 for every $1 invested--to the New England region. The impact of GoMOOS in our region has been profound. Fisheries scientists and managers use this information to predict ocean conditions that affect productivity, and they are finding new ways to apply this information in resource management. Fishermen, sailors, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, the military, and others who traverse the ocean are better able to predict safe sea conditions, and shippers can transport their goods more efficiently. Ocean scientists and regulators are better able to understand, predict, and rapidly respond to marine pollution and hazardous ocean conditions such as harmful algal blooms. Educators and students are learning more about marine science. Of course, all States that border our Nation's oceans and Great Lakes would benefit from easy access to this kind of ocean information. Following the example of GoMOOS, more than a dozen ocean and coastal observing systems are being developed and implemented around the Nation, many in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA, State coastal managers, universities, marine industries, and other regional partners. While these systems can provide valuable services to their region, we have found that they use different--and sometimes incompatible--methods for collecting, managing, processing, and communicating their data. When this happens, we lose the ability to develop a comprehensive assessment of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation. S. 361, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, would facilitate action to correct this problem. This bill would coordinate the regional ocean and coastal observation efforts and link them at the national level under the leadership of NOAA. It would help further develop regional observation systems, link them through a nationwide network, and ensure public access to the information so that anyone, anywhere, at any time could better understand and track ocean and coastal conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to establish an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate operational activities and budgets, as well as oversee a research and development program. Further, this bill would charge NOAA as the lead Federal agency to ensure that this national network of regional observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development, effectively integrate and utilize ocean data for the benefit of the American public. As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses of this system are nearly unlimited. As chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard and as a coastal State Senator, I am extremely proud to sponsor and support this bill. It is imperative that we in Congress facilitate the development and funding of a national, integrated, and sustained ocean observation network, and we can start by passing the bill before us. This bill, once enacted, will provide a tremendous public service along our Nation's oceans and coasts, and I thank my colleagues for supporting it. The bill (S. 361), as amended, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the United States has a long history of creativity and innovation when it comes to energy. But, somehow we cannot seem to break away from our dependency on foreign oil as the dominant energy source. It is clear that we must begin a new chapter for energy use as we begin the 21st century through new sources and new means of both generating and saving energy, in particular, for the energy security of our Nation. I am pleased that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at least starts us down this path. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate this week attempts to look broadly at our energy needs and at new technologies. Innovation has been the bedrock of this nation's economic growth and it will be essential once again in transforming the way energy is produced and consumed, not only in the United States but around the world. Fuel cell technology is just one example of this ingenuity--offering a clean, secure, efficient, distributed and dependable source of energy. I am pleased that the Lieberman-Snowe fuel cell bill is part of the overall bill as it should be part of our national energy strategy. New sources of energy and energy efficiencies can and must be developed and launched in the marketplace for the benefit of both our own national security as well as the American consumer. At the same time, conservation, and decreased energy consumption through greater energy efficiencies are also a necessity. I am particularly pleased that the bill contains a number of energy efficiency tax incentives I have championed that will benefit my state of Maine as well as the rest of the nation. Specifically, this bill provides important tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient commercial buildings, and renovation of old existing buildings--including schools and other public buildings--as well as residential buildings that produce a 50 percent reduction in energy costs to the owner or tenant--as compared to a national model code that was part of S. 680, Efficient Energy Through Certified Technologies and Electricity Reliability, or EFFECTER, Act that I have introduced with Senators Feinstein, McCain, and Durbin. The bill also contains a tax credit for new energy-efficient homes that save as much as 30 to 50 percent of the heating and cooling energy costs, as well as tax credits for efficient heating, cooling and water heating equipment--including air conditioners--that reduce consumer energy costs. Notably, these incentives are based on performance, not cost, in order to foster competition between suppliers of different technologies to produce products that meet the proposed target and conserve the most energy. And we know that competition will not only improve these technologies, but help make them more widely available. The bill also extends the section 45 tax credit for electricity production from renewable sources. In the JOBS bill enacted last fall, this credit was modified to allow categories of waste materials from forest-related activities--biomass, which is a critical industry in Maine--to qualify. This has been a boost to the struggling forest products industry and will take a step towards smart energy production. It was vital that we extended this effective tax credit. I believe our task is to help make it more attractive, through the tax code, for our U.S. manufacturers to get the most promising and cost-effective technologies to the U.S. and global marketplace as quickly as possible. Through the tax code, we can also incentives great energy savings though energy efficiencies. We should help increase the American public's awareness of the benefits to our health and our national security of encouraging the shift away from foreign oil and toward domestic renewable and alternative energy sources that help curb our voracious thirst for fossil fuels. My performance-based targeted incentives included in the bill will reduce natural gas prices and electricity prices by cutting the demand for natural gas and electricity in the near term, as well as in the longer term. The bottom line is, we have the opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems and energy efficiencies. Solutions do exist in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. I must admit to disappointment that we did not address, at the very least, closing the SUV CAFE Standards loophole that would have rectified an unacceptable inequity when it comes to obtaining greater fuel economy for the vehicles we choose to drive. We did not take this road currently less traveled towards decreasing our nation's need to import greater and greater amounts of foreign oil from the most volatile area of the globe, and at the same time, decrease polluting vehicle emissions that affect both the public's and the planet's health. I am also concerned that the United States is not moving ahead to take actions to address climate change, although, for the first time, the U.S. Senate passed a sense of the Senate resolution on climate change that officially recognizes that there is no doubt that greenhouse gases are irrevocably impacting our climate and that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions are necessary. This truly global problem requires solutions based on cooperation and consensus, and I hope that, as the G8 countries, the world's economic leaders and largest emitters of greenhouse gases, meet this next week in Glenagles, Scotland, they will use the summit as a forum to reach agreement on practical and reasoned solutions to confront climate change, setting the stage to bring the developing world to the table. This is what the International Climate Change Taskforce, for which I am the Cochair, set out to do well over a year ago. This group of international leaders came up with a blueprint to set out a pathway to engage all countries in concerted action on climate change, including those not bound by the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the ICCT ``Meeting the Climate Challenge'' Summary of Main Recommendations and Appendix B: Taskforce members. We should bequeath to all our children a world as rich in life and opportunity as the one we inherited. And, we need to start pursuing economically and environmentally sound ways to meet this challenge now.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the best naval nuclear shipyard in America, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME Today, RADM Anthony W. Lengerich visited the shipyard to celebrate the Meritorious Unit Commendation presented to Naval Shipyard Portsmouth by Chief of Naval Operations Vernon E. Clark on May 12, 2005. The Commendation in part reads as follows: The personnel of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and tenant activities consistently and superbly performed their mission while establishing a phenomenal record of cost, schedule, quality, and safety performance. The Shipyard embraced the One-Shipyard Initiative and is leading the transformation of our Navy's nuclear ship maintenance base through innovation . . . Portsmouth Naval Shipyard personnel established new performance levels for submarine maintenance, modernization, and overhaul work . . . The Shipyard completed six major submarine availabilities . . . (and) reduced injuries by more than 50 percent . . . Naval Shipyard Portsmouth's extraordinary performance is translating into increased U.S. Submarine Fleet readiness. By their unrelenting determination, perseverance, and steadfast devotion to duty, the officers, enlisted personnel, and civilian employees of Naval Shipyard Portsmouth reflected credit upon themselves and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Today, at the ceremony marking this exceptional recognition, Admiral Lengerich told the men and women of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard: The Navy and the country need you to continue doing what has earned you your reputation for professionalism and patriotism. I'm talking about your work ethic, your enthusiasm, your attention to detail, your willingness to apply diligence in everything you do. Those of us in the Maine and New Hampshire delegations couldn't agree more. This is a shipyard that delivered six ships in a row a collective 60 weeks early, that saves $82 million over the Navy's other shipyards for each submarine refueling, and $26 million for each major overhaul, that is the Navy's only ``Star'' Site for safety, that exports its innovation and best practices to other shipyards. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has been in existence for 205 years. And while much has changed over the past two centuries, what has not changed is the shipyard workers' commitment to excellence, and the sense of each and every person there that they are contributing their own chapter to the remarkable story of Portsmouth--and to them we extend our most profound appreciation. From its earliest days, producing wooden ``ships of the line'' to its time as a Navy command during the War of 1812 to its production of 133 submarines, including a record 31 in 1944, the yard has not only been a fixture on the New England seacoast, it has been a bulwark against the shifting threats to our nation and world across the span of two entire centuries. The yard was there when the British were our enemy. This yard was there during the darkest hours of World War Two. The yard was there when the Soviet threat in the heart of Europe fueled the cold war. And it has more recently borne witness to both the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet empire. Today, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard remains as critical today as it was 205 years ago. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life if freedom fail? This shipyard, this monument to American ingenuity, this testament to the American worker has for 205 years helped ensure that freedom will not fail. May this crown jewel of the Navy continue to exemplify Maine's motto, ``Dirigo''--``I Lead''.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Less than 3 months ago, Congress was informed that the Department of Veterans Affairs would not require emergency appropriations for the current fiscal year. The Senate acted accordingly in supporting the existing appropriation. In the past week, we have been informed that the VA now faces a budget shortfall of approximately $1 billion. Many of my colleagues are today discussing how we got here, and where the fiscal projections went wrong. The failure to consider the needs of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan in forecasting expenditures demonstrates a critical and inexcusable deficit in planning. Some suggest a new means of budgeting the VA. These are vital issues and they will undoubtedly be discussed as in the context of future appropriations. However, what is most critical today is addressing the immediate and pressing needs of our veterans. We simply must maintain our commitment to those who have given so much in their service to our country. Secretary Nicholson had told us that the current budget shortfall would be made up in two ways. The first would be to use approximately $600 million from maintenance and capital expenditure accounts, redirecting approximately half of such moneys to operating expenses. According to the Secretary, new construction would not be affected. Yet that leaves undone many pressing projects such as critical repairs and renovations. In many cases, these projects cannot be wisely deferred. The second means of addressing the shortfall would be to use approximately $400 million from a carryover account. This approach simply depletes resources and digs a deeper hole for the Department in the next fiscal year. The answer to this problem does not lie in amplifying the shortfall in this fiscal year. We do not undertake emergency appropriations lightly, but we simply cannot deplete resources, and fail to properly budget for the needs of veterans. Those who have served us in the past, and those who continue to serve today, must know that VA services will not be disrupted. Thus I join my colleagues in supporting an emergency appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that our veterans shall receive the timely services and support which they so deserve. The Department faces great challenges. As our veterans grow older, their health care needs increase. The VA faces the same challenges in managing health care costs which all of America faces, yet anyone who has met a veteran with a service-connected injury or disability understands the many additional needs which we must meet, especially in light of the service of millions have given this country. Even today, as over 130,000 stand in areas of conflict to promote liberty for others, we must make clear that we will always stand by them, today, and tomorrow.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Feinstein for yielding me time on this amendment. I have cosponsored this amendment because it is critical to involve States in the decisionmaking process of liquified natural gas terminal siting. Natural gas, like renewable energy, should and will have a major place in our 21st century energy policy. Similar to my colleagues in other rural states, I have had concerns about the high cost of fuel. And similar to my colleagues in northern states, I have heard the concerns of the outrageous cost of oil in relation to our winter heating costs. I recognize the importance of creating a national plan that ensures that both the supply of energy is increased and our demand for energy is curtailed. It is critical, as the Feinstein-Snowe amendment presents, that we have a responsibility to make sure that at the dawn of the 21st century, we have the ability to select placement of liquified natural gas sites deliberately and with all the potential problems addressed. The only truly effective way of ensuring safe and effective placement of LNG sites is to involve local concerns in the process. States simply need to have a role in deciding where the best LNG sites exist. The Feinstein-Snowe legislation gives concurrent Federal and State jurisdiction for the siting of LNG facilities so that State governments are not preempted from the decisionmaking process for the location of future LNG facilities. Let's talk about the scale of these tankers. The placement of an LNG facility has profound effects in the local community environment, ecosystem, fishing industry, and residential commercial communities that are intrinsically linked to the ocean. The decision to fundamentally change the nature of a coastal community in the placing of an LNG site should only be made by including all people in and all actors affected by the siting. This amendment ensures the State governments can provide insight into the location process. My State of Maine has a coastline that is more than 5,000 miles long, which is why there is great interest in siting LNG facilities at different locations along its coast. Over this past year in Maine, the controversial siting of LNG facilities has found both support and opposition, finding some residents supporting a substantial source of economic development and revenues and others opposed because of concern about a potential terrorist target, interference with the lobster industry, navigation and spoiling the coastal vistas and land values. Each community has had the opportunity to have its say through referendums. Each resident was able to cast a vote, whether yes or no, as to what he or she thought was best for their community and for their State. I have had great concerns about handing this very siting decision solely over to a Federal agency and feel very strongly there should be a process in place where the Governor, speaking for the people of Maine, must have an equal opportunity to democratically put a voice to what happens in their own back yard. What has occurred in the various communities is a perfect example as to why States should be given a say in the sitings of these facilities. States simply must have input into such a major decision. We are not talking about the siting of a neighborhood ball park or a new Wal-Mart but a processing facility that totally alters the coastal landscape and a facility that needs to be fed LNG from 13-story-high tankers coming into the port each and every day. In its current form, the Energy bill before the Senate gives exclusive authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in selecting LNG sites. This would effectively eliminate any input from State governments into the selection of these locations. Moving total control to FERC transfers an enormous power to an unelected Federal agency which has no accountability to the local communities affected. Without the amendment, local sentiments will go unheard or be simply ignored. To foist upon a State and a local community and to exclude them from the process is clearly unwise. Within our Union of States, unique State concerns must be recognized in Federal Government decisions. It is the States rights issue, plain and simple. The placement of an LNG facility in a given locality alters the landscape of that community. They are entitled to be involved in a decisionmaking process that allows the voices of the community to be heard. Let us ensure that the safety, the environment, and local concerns are observed and that we include our State governments as coequals. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Feinstein-Snowe amendment. I thank the Senator from California for offering it. It is so critical, knowing the experience that has occurred in Maine. With many communities having voiced their opinions on a particular siting for an LNG facility, it is important they are able to participate in the process. I do not believe we should allow the Federal Government to supercede the ability of people to ultimately make a decision that transforms the landscape that clearly does have a direct effect and impact on those communities. That is a decision that should be determined by the people in a particular State. That is what has been happening in my State. It should be able to happen and occur in each and every State in the country. We should not allow Federal legislation to supercede or to prevent States from being able to voice their opinions, their decisions, and their own regulations with respect to siting these facilities. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our Nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 32,000 calls for assistance, and saved 5,500 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, acts of terror, and other national security threats. In 2004, the Coast Guard seized 376,000 pounds of illegal narcotics, preventing them from reaching our streets and playgrounds. They also stopped over 11,000 illegal migrants from reaching our shores. In addition they conducted 4,500 boardings to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to 23,904 pollution incidents. In today's post-9/11 world, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever securing the nation's coastline, waterways, and ports. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission catalogue continues today. Last year alone, the Coast Guard aggressively defended our homeland by conducting more than 36,000 port security patrols, boarded over 19,000 vessels, escorted over 7,200 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. By introducing the Coast Guard Authorization bill today, I intend to continue giving the Coast Guard my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to carry out its many critically important missions that it provides to this Nation. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has come on the backs of its 42,000 men and women who faithfully serve our country. Additionally, it has taken a significant toll on the ships, boats, and aircraft that the Coast Guard uses on a daily basis. I believe we need to shift this burden off our people and instead adequately provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs, primarily through the full support of its recapitalization project known as Deepwater. The bill I introduce today would authorize funding at $8.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2006 and $8.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2007. This represents an 8 percent annual budget increase over the levels contained in last year's authorization bill. This authorization will continue to allow the Coast Guard to perform non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection, as well as fund the necessary missions related to ports, waterways, and coastal security. This bill also includes numerous measures that would allow the Coast Guard to enforce provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, an essential element in securing the Nation's ports and waterways. Additionally, it would address maritime safety issues by allowing the Coast Guard to continue training both the commercial fishing industry and the recreational boating public in issues regarding safety at sea. Joint training for foreign Nations is also addressed, which allows for nation-building and the development of bilateral agreements that allow the Coast Guard to effectively combat the trafficking of illegal narcotics into our Nation, keeping them off the streets and out of our schools. In response to the final report of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, this bill includes provisions that would allow the Coast Guard to work with other Federal, State, and local agencies in developing plans to assist vessels in distress, thus eliminating the potential for loss of life and environmental damage. It also directs the Coast Guard to develop steps that will allow it to better detect and interdict vessels, both American and foreign flagged, that are violating fishing regulations. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. To accomplish its many vital missions, the Coast Guard desperately needs to recapitalize its offshore fleet of cutters and aircraft. The Coast Guard operates the third oldest of the world's 42 similar naval fleets with several cutters dating back to World War II. These platforms are technologically obsolete, require excessive maintenance, lack essential speed, and have poor interoperability which in turn limit their overall mission effectiveness and efficiency. Unfortunately, they are reaching the end of their serviceable life just when the Coast Guard needs them the most. The Coast Guard continues to progress with its major recapitalization program for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the procurement strategy the Coast Guard is utilizing. This bill would authorize full funding for this critical long-term recapitalization program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our Nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 32,000 calls for assistance, and saved 5,500 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, acts of terror, and other national security threats. In 2004, the Coast Guard seized 376,000 pounds of illegal narcotics, preventing them from reaching our streets and playgrounds. They also stopped over 11,000 illegal migrants from reaching our shores. In addition they conducted 4,500 boardings to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to 23,904 pollution incidents. In today's post-9/11 world, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever securing the nation's coastline, waterways, and ports. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission catalogue continues today. Last year alone, the Coast Guard aggressively defended our homeland by conducting more than 36,000 port security patrols, boarded over 19,000 vessels, escorted over 7,200 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. By introducing the Coast Guard Authorization bill today, I intend to continue giving the Coast Guard my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to carry out its many critically important missions that it provides to this Nation. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has come on the backs of its 42,000 men and women who faithfully serve our country. Additionally, it has taken a significant toll on the ships, boats, and aircraft that the Coast Guard uses on a daily basis. I believe we need to shift this burden off our people and instead adequately provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs, primarily through the full support of its recapitalization project known as Deepwater. The bill I introduce today would authorize funding at $8.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2006 and $8.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2007. This represents an 8 percent annual budget increase over the levels contained in last year's authorization bill. This authorization will continue to allow the Coast Guard to perform non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection, as well as fund the necessary missions related to ports, waterways, and coastal security. This bill also includes numerous measures that would allow the Coast Guard to enforce provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, an essential element in securing the Nation's ports and waterways. Additionally, it would address maritime safety issues by allowing the Coast Guard to continue training both the commercial fishing industry and the recreational boating public in issues regarding safety at sea. Joint training for foreign Nations is also addressed, which allows for nation-building and the development of bilateral agreements that allow the Coast Guard to effectively combat the trafficking of illegal narcotics into our Nation, keeping them off the streets and out of our schools. In response to the final report of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, this bill includes provisions that would allow the Coast Guard to work with other Federal, State, and local agencies in developing plans to assist vessels in distress, thus eliminating the potential for loss of life and environmental damage. It also directs the Coast Guard to develop steps that will allow it to better detect and interdict vessels, both American and foreign flagged, that are violating fishing regulations. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. To accomplish its many vital missions, the Coast Guard desperately needs to recapitalize its offshore fleet of cutters and aircraft. The Coast Guard operates the third oldest of the world's 42 similar naval fleets with several cutters dating back to World War II. These platforms are technologically obsolete, require excessive maintenance, lack essential speed, and have poor interoperability which in turn limit their overall mission effectiveness and efficiency. Unfortunately, they are reaching the end of their serviceable life just when the Coast Guard needs them the most. The Coast Guard continues to progress with its major recapitalization program for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the procurement strategy the Coast Guard is utilizing. This bill would authorize full funding for this critical long-term recapitalization program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of S. Res. 39, an apology on behalf of the United States Senate, for its inaction during one of this Nation's darkest chapters. Today, my colleagues and I, through this legislation, offer an apology to the victims of lynching, and their families and descendants, for the Senate's failure to enact antilynching legislation throughout the course of this Nation's history. Despite the fact that, at key junctures in our Nation's history, the House of Representatives passed, and the President stood ready to sign, Federal law to actively eliminate lynching throughout the country, such legislation died in the Senate, as did the many victims of this heinous crime who might have been saved by the passage of such law. Following the Civil War, and as Reconstruction ended Federal troops withdrew their presence from the States that had been in rebellion, lynching became the most extreme form of racial oppression in the South. Between 1881 and 1964, at least 4,749 reported lynchings took place, with most of the victims being black; all but four States had at least one lynching on record. However, 99 percent of the perpetrators of these crimes escaped any punishment, as State and local authorities refused to investigate and prosecute these cases, and those who were charged with lynching were regularly acquitted by all-white juries. Unprotected by State authorities, African-Americans and civil rights groups sought protection from the Federal Government, the same authority that rid this Nation of the scourge of slavery. As a result of the Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution, the Federal Government had the express power to pass legislation under the 13th and 14th Amendments to use the full force of the Federal Government's law enforcement authority to put an end to lynching. In fact, between 1890 and 1952, seven Presidents petitioned Congress to halt lynching, and almost 200 antilynching bills were introduced in Congress. Most notably, on three on three occasions between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed strong antilynching bills. And equally as regrettably, all three of these bills died in the United States Senate. That is why I find S. Res. 39 to be entirely appropriate, and frankly long overdue. This resolution, offered by my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Allen, constitutes a formal apology by the Senate ``to the victims and survivors of lynching for its failure to enact antlynching legislation.'' It further expresses this Chamber's sympathy and regret to the descendants of these victims. Undoubtedly, a measure of this nature may stand as insignificant when compared to the sad legacy of men, women, and children dying at the hands of racist, bigoted vigilantism. Yet it is my hope that this resolution, which we will pass tonight, will help heal some of the wounds for the surviving family members of the victims of lynching. This effort has been a long time coming, and I am thankful for the involvement of my colleagues, present and former, who have taken part in supporting this effort. I thank the sponsors of this resolution, Senators Allen and Landrieu, as well as all other cosponsors of this resolution, 60 in number altogether. I also want to thank Janet Langhart Cohen and her husband, our former colleague and fellow Mainer Bill Cohen. Their devotion to championing this cause helped to raise my awareness of this issue, and I am sure many of my colleagues have similar feelings. For decades after the Civil War, too many of our fellow Americans suffered from the murderous actions of lynching bees and the fear and intimidation that accompanied those actions. People of all backgrounds fell victim to lynch mobs in nearly every State, but this burden fell especially hard on our fellow citizens in the African American community. Needless to say, the Senate bears no direct responsibility for these crimes, nor does this resolution suggest anything along those lines. However, the Senate's sin was one of omission. At critical junctures in our history, when the tide of the terror wrought by lynching could have been stemmed by passage of Federal legislation, the Senate single-handedly blocked such action. For this inaction, at times when this legislative body was needed the most, we in the Senate express our heart-felt apology to those whose suffering could have been avoided. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, in introducing the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'', which will serve to improve the quality of health care through implementation of information technology; IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. At a time when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has reported that up to 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors, we cannot afford to wait. When we also consider the escalating cost of health care in this country, we must recognize that this level of growth in spending has created a crisis. Information technology is one solution, and this legislation will assert the federal government's role in providing leadership in this area and provide financial incentives to spur rapid adoption of information technology in medicine. Our legislation is necessary because as a nation we face two stark problems. The first of these is a serious patient safety problem. The good news is that solutions exist: We have the technological ability to dramatically reduce medical errors and thus save lives. Many have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards. Yet there are so many other applications which can improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and avoid adverse outcomes. Our second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Costs are reduced when tests don't have to be repeated and data isn't delayed. In fact, a patient may obtain faster, higher quality care when, for example, multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the internet in seconds, isn't it long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily? The President certainly recognizes the disparity in technology in health versus other parts of our economy. He has declared a goal for every American to have an electronic medical record within 10 years. I concur--we need this and more. In fact, once that record is in place we can do so many things better. From preventing drug interactions, to managing chronic diseases, to simply helping providers operate more efficiently. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed'', or ``we're still waiting for your chart''. Health care is one of the last bastions of such inefficiency. The bad news is that high start-up costs and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies. I am certainly looking forward to the progress we will make with Dr. David Brailer heading the new Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the Department of Health and Human Services. The President has made technology implementation a priority, and there is no doubt that a lack of standards has prevented IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that--no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor--the huge investment one makes in building an electronic medical record won't be lost. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. So when a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them, and their continuity of care shouldn't be interrupted. Yet standards alone aren't enough. Today many providers are struggling to make these investments, and for those which serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. The legislation which we are introducing today will bring the solution within our reach. In the last Congress I worked with Senator Bob Graham to introduce legislation which provided a grants program to give assistance to hospitals and long term care facilities to enable investment in IT. As I join today with Senator Stabenow to introduce this legislation, we have made several crucial enhancements to the previous bill. The legislation now includes both federally-qualified health centers and community mental health centers as eligible to receive IT grants. In addition, physician practices can also participate. All three are key treatment environments where both costs and errors must be addressed. Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. The legislation supports expenditures for a variety of expenses required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software, plus installation and training costs. In addition, when installed we require that every system must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards. We know we will realize significant savings through information technology. On that there is bipartisan consensus. Yet as providers are facing even declining payment rates, they also are told they must institute changes in the way they practice, including implementing information technology. We know that much of the savings in health care IT will accrue to the patient and payer--in such aspects as fewer duplicate tests, greater efficiency, and better health management. Thus it is appropriate that the Federal Government would assist with the often prohibitive start-up costs--particularly for those who serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. I again want to stress the first goal of this legislation: To help build a safer medical-delivery system. The great successes of our health care system are largely due to our highly committed and talented health care professionals. The problem we are addressing today is not theirs, but is an endemic weakness of the system they depend upon. However, to utilize the solution, the Federal Government must step forward and provide the leadership necessary to make system changes a reality. When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could only have dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Now, today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, in introducing the ``Health Information Technology Act of 2005'', which will serve to improve the quality of health care through implementation of information technology; IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. At a time when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has reported that up to 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors, we cannot afford to wait. When we also consider the escalating cost of health care in this country, we must recognize that this level of growth in spending has created a crisis. Information technology is one solution, and this legislation will assert the federal government's role in providing leadership in this area and provide financial incentives to spur rapid adoption of information technology in medicine. Our legislation is necessary because as a nation we face two stark problems. The first of these is a serious patient safety problem. The good news is that solutions exist: We have the technological ability to dramatically reduce medical errors and thus save lives. Many have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards. Yet there are so many other applications which can improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and avoid adverse outcomes. Our second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Costs are reduced when tests don't have to be repeated and data isn't delayed. In fact, a patient may obtain faster, higher quality care when, for example, multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the internet in seconds, isn't it long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily? The President certainly recognizes the disparity in technology in health versus other parts of our economy. He has declared a goal for every American to have an electronic medical record within 10 years. I concur--we need this and more. In fact, once that record is in place we can do so many things better. From preventing drug interactions, to managing chronic diseases, to simply helping providers operate more efficiently. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed'', or ``we're still waiting for your chart''. Health care is one of the last bastions of such inefficiency. The bad news is that high start-up costs and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies. I am certainly looking forward to the progress we will make with Dr. David Brailer heading the new Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the Department of Health and Human Services. The President has made technology implementation a priority, and there is no doubt that a lack of standards has prevented IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that--no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor--the huge investment one makes in building an electronic medical record won't be lost. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. So when a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them, and their continuity of care shouldn't be interrupted. Yet standards alone aren't enough. Today many providers are struggling to make these investments, and for those which serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. The legislation which we are introducing today will bring the solution within our reach. In the last Congress I worked with Senator Bob Graham to introduce legislation which provided a grants program to give assistance to hospitals and long term care facilities to enable investment in IT. As I join today with Senator Stabenow to introduce this legislation, we have made several crucial enhancements to the previous bill. The legislation now includes both federally-qualified health centers and community mental health centers as eligible to receive IT grants. In addition, physician practices can also participate. All three are key treatment environments where both costs and errors must be addressed. Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. The legislation supports expenditures for a variety of expenses required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software, plus installation and training costs. In addition, when installed we require that every system must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards. We know we will realize significant savings through information technology. On that there is bipartisan consensus. Yet as providers are facing even declining payment rates, they also are told they must institute changes in the way they practice, including implementing information technology. We know that much of the savings in health care IT will accrue to the patient and payer--in such aspects as fewer duplicate tests, greater efficiency, and better health management. Thus it is appropriate that the Federal Government would assist with the often prohibitive start-up costs--particularly for those who serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. I again want to stress the first goal of this legislation: To help build a safer medical-delivery system. The great successes of our health care system are largely due to our highly committed and talented health care professionals. The problem we are addressing today is not theirs, but is an endemic weakness of the system they depend upon. However, to utilize the solution, the Federal Government must step forward and provide the leadership necessary to make system changes a reality. When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could only have dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Now, today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this year well over 6 million pregnancies will occur in America. The challenge of raising healthy children and preparing them for a changing world is a staggering one indeed. This is even more so when so frequently both parents are working. So it is tragic that half of all pregnancies today are unplanned. In too many cases, this means that the necessary financial, emotional and other resources for parenting are simply not present. I think we certainly share a broad consensus that every child should be wanted, and that parents should have the resources to ensure their child's health and success. This week we have commemorated the 40th anniversary of a landmark Supreme Court decision, that of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the right of married couples to contraceptives and family planning counseling was recognized. Yet less than a decade ago, when we examined the state of contraceptive coverage by insurance plans, it certainly was discouraging. While many health plans included coverage for prescription drugs, nearly half did not cover even oral contraceptives. Needless to say, many other contraceptive options for women, such as the diaphragm, implants, and injectable methods were covered even less frequently. This is disturbing, as contraception is so vital to a woman's health. Most women will spend just a few years attempting to conceive, with the average woman desiring two children. That leaves about 30 years in which women need access to safe, affordable contraceptives. The benefits of contraception should be obvious. The maternal death rate in the U.S. is only one third what it was back in 1965 before Griswold. The same is true for infant survival. Family planning preserves a woman's health, and allows couples to ensure that they have the means to give every child the attention, support, and resources they need. So today I am joining again with Senator Reid to introduce legislation to ensure broader access to contraception--to ensure that the promise of Griswold v. Connecticut is fully realized. I thank him for his ongoing leadership on this issue. We both agree that contraception coverage is essential to reducing unwanted pregnancies and to ensuring that every couple can employ family planning. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, which we again introduce today, will assure that for those plans which provide prescription drug coverage, contraceptive coverage is not excluded. It further ensures that contraceptive services are provided equitably with other outpatient services. Such coverage is just what the Institute of Medicine called for back in 1995, when the Institute reported that a lack of coverage was a major contributor to unwanted pregnancy. Expanding the proportion of health plans which cover contraception is one of the Surgeon General's objectives for the Healthy People 2010 plan. We can certainly achieve that objective and ensure that in 2010, unwanted pregnancies are exceedingly rare. Some may argue that such a mandate creates yet more costs for providers, but the evidence fails to support that notion. We have seen that for every dollar in public funds which is invested in family planning, three dollars is saved in Medicaid costs for pregnancy- related health care and medical care for newborns. Indeed after we acted in 1998 to assure coverage to women in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Office of Personnel Management concluded in 2001 that there was no cost increase due to coverage. Many health providers have come to the same conclusion. I note that approximately 90 percent of plans now cover the leading methods of reversible contraception. So we have come a long way. There should be no mistake--this issue boils down the principles of basic fairness--fairness for half this Nation's population, fairness in how we view and treat a woman's reproductive health versus every other kind of health care need that can be addressed with prescription drugs. The facts are not in dispute B the lack of equitable coverage of prescription contraceptives has a very real impact on the lives of America's women and, therefore, our society as a whole. This is not overstatement, this is reality. All we are saying is that if an employer provides insurance coverage for all other prescription drugs, they must also provide coverage for FDA-approved prescription contraceptives--it is that simple, it is that fair, and it builds on existing law and jurisprudence. The approach we are taking today has already been endorsed by a total of 29 States--including my home State of Maine--that have passed similar laws since 1998. This is real progress but this piecemeal approach to fairness leaves many American women at the mercy of geography when it comes to the coverage they deserve. But fairness is not the only issue. We believe that EPICC not only makes sense in terms of the cost of contraceptives for women, but also as a means bridging the pro-choice pro-life chasm by helping prevent unintended pregnancies and thereby also preventing abortions. The fact of the matter is, we know that there are over three million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States. We also know that almost half of those pregnancies result from women who do not use contraceptives. Most of the other half involved inconsistent or incorrect use of contraceptives--and in many of these cases, the women would benefit from counseling or provision of a contraceptive which is more appropriate to their circumstances. Surveys consistently demonstrate that almost nine out of ten Americans support contraception access and over 75 percent support laws requiring health insurance plans to cover methods of contraception such as birth control pills. The question before us is, if EPICC-style coverage is good enough for 9 million Federal employees and their dependents, if it is good enough for every Member of Congress and every Senator, why is not it good enough for the American people? Women should have control over their reproductive health. It is the best interests of their overall health, their children and their future children's health--and when we have fewer unintended pregnancies, we will reduce the number of abortions. We need to finally fix this inequity in prescription drug coverage and make certain that all American women have access to this most basic health need. I thank all of those who have supported us in this effort, and call upon each of my colleagues to join us to ensure that more couples have access to family planning to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to assure the health and security of American families.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this year well over 6 million pregnancies will occur in America. The challenge of raising healthy children and preparing them for a changing world is a staggering one indeed. This is even more so when so frequently both parents are working. So it is tragic that half of all pregnancies today are unplanned. In too many cases, this means that the necessary financial, emotional and other resources for parenting are simply not present. I think we certainly share a broad consensus that every child should be wanted, and that parents should have the resources to ensure their child's health and success. This week we have commemorated the 40th anniversary of a landmark Supreme Court decision, that of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the right of married couples to contraceptives and family planning counseling was recognized. Yet less than a decade ago, when we examined the state of contraceptive coverage by insurance plans, it certainly was discouraging. While many health plans included coverage for prescription drugs, nearly half did not cover even oral contraceptives. Needless to say, many other contraceptive options for women, such as the diaphragm, implants, and injectable methods were covered even less frequently. This is disturbing, as contraception is so vital to a woman's health. Most women will spend just a few years attempting to conceive, with the average woman desiring two children. That leaves about 30 years in which women need access to safe, affordable contraceptives. The benefits of contraception should be obvious. The maternal death rate in the U.S. is only one third what it was back in 1965 before Griswold. The same is true for infant survival. Family planning preserves a woman's health, and allows couples to ensure that they have the means to give every child the attention, support, and resources they need. So today I am joining again with Senator Reid to introduce legislation to ensure broader access to contraception--to ensure that the promise of Griswold v. Connecticut is fully realized. I thank him for his ongoing leadership on this issue. We both agree that contraception coverage is essential to reducing unwanted pregnancies and to ensuring that every couple can employ family planning. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, which we again introduce today, will assure that for those plans which provide prescription drug coverage, contraceptive coverage is not excluded. It further ensures that contraceptive services are provided equitably with other outpatient services. Such coverage is just what the Institute of Medicine called for back in 1995, when the Institute reported that a lack of coverage was a major contributor to unwanted pregnancy. Expanding the proportion of health plans which cover contraception is one of the Surgeon General's objectives for the Healthy People 2010 plan. We can certainly achieve that objective and ensure that in 2010, unwanted pregnancies are exceedingly rare. Some may argue that such a mandate creates yet more costs for providers, but the evidence fails to support that notion. We have seen that for every dollar in public funds which is invested in family planning, three dollars is saved in Medicaid costs for pregnancy- related health care and medical care for newborns. Indeed after we acted in 1998 to assure coverage to women in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the Office of Personnel Management concluded in 2001 that there was no cost increase due to coverage. Many health providers have come to the same conclusion. I note that approximately 90 percent of plans now cover the leading methods of reversible contraception. So we have come a long way. There should be no mistake--this issue boils down the principles of basic fairness--fairness for half this Nation's population, fairness in how we view and treat a woman's reproductive health versus every other kind of health care need that can be addressed with prescription drugs. The facts are not in dispute B the lack of equitable coverage of prescription contraceptives has a very real impact on the lives of America's women and, therefore, our society as a whole. This is not overstatement, this is reality. All we are saying is that if an employer provides insurance coverage for all other prescription drugs, they must also provide coverage for FDA-approved prescription contraceptives--it is that simple, it is that fair, and it builds on existing law and jurisprudence. The approach we are taking today has already been endorsed by a total of 29 States--including my home State of Maine--that have passed similar laws since 1998. This is real progress but this piecemeal approach to fairness leaves many American women at the mercy of geography when it comes to the coverage they deserve. But fairness is not the only issue. We believe that EPICC not only makes sense in terms of the cost of contraceptives for women, but also as a means bridging the pro-choice pro-life chasm by helping prevent unintended pregnancies and thereby also preventing abortions. The fact of the matter is, we know that there are over three million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States. We also know that almost half of those pregnancies result from women who do not use contraceptives. Most of the other half involved inconsistent or incorrect use of contraceptives--and in many of these cases, the women would benefit from counseling or provision of a contraceptive which is more appropriate to their circumstances. Surveys consistently demonstrate that almost nine out of ten Americans support contraception access and over 75 percent support laws requiring health insurance plans to cover methods of contraception such as birth control pills. The question before us is, if EPICC-style coverage is good enough for 9 million Federal employees and their dependents, if it is good enough for every Member of Congress and every Senator, why is not it good enough for the American people? Women should have control over their reproductive health. It is the best interests of their overall health, their children and their future children's health--and when we have fewer unintended pregnancies, we will reduce the number of abortions. We need to finally fix this inequity in prescription drug coverage and make certain that all American women have access to this most basic health need. I thank all of those who have supported us in this effort, and call upon each of my colleagues to join us to ensure that more couples have access to family planning to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to assure the health and security of American families.