Olympia Snowe

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, today we mark forty years since a momentous Supreme Court decision. It is difficult for many young Americans to imagine that in the not too distant past, the provision of contraceptives was illegal. In the 1965 landmark decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court recognized the right of married couples to obtain contraception and reproductive counseling. This was a watershed moment in public health--indeed such that the CDC has recognized that our subsequent progress in family planning constitutes one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the last century. Women have faced great obstacles in family planning. While the average woman desires two children, with more than thirty years of fertility a woman's health and the welfare of her family is compromised without modern contraception. We know that family planning has been practiced throughout history, but the methods used were certainly not always safe and effective. Today we take for granted both the access to modern contraceptives and the individual's right to make reproductive decisions. Among our noblest intentions is that every child is wanted, and that parents will have the resources to ensure their child's health and success. Following the Griswold decision, we have come far closer to that goal. We certainly can see the results. The maternal death rate in the U.S. is only one third what is was back in 1965. The same is true for infant survival. The health outcomes are indisputable. The lives of women have also been improved in so many ways. Four times more women are now college educated. This is so vital in an age where a more competitive world demands so much more of American families. It is essential that women can better themselves and ensure the security of their families. As we commemorate the recognition by the Supreme Court that individuals have a right to that most basic part of life--the planning of their families--we recognize that there is still a great deal of progress to be made. Legal access does not equate to affordability. Certainly we must adequately fund Medicaid, title X, and other programs which provide family planning services. Such access reduces unwanted pregnancies, promotes the economic stability of families, and improves the health of both mother and child, yet we need to do more. We simply must assure that access to contraceptives is equitable-- that a lack of coverage by health plans does not place one of our most effective public health measures out of reach for millions of women. To achieve this aim, I will again introduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Act with Senator Reid later this week. I invite my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to realize the full promise of Griswold v. Connecticut--healthier mothers, healthier children, and healthy, stable families.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2005 with my colleagues, Senator John Kerry, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Susan Collins. Briefly, our bill would correct a serious disparity in Medicare payment policy for mental health treatment. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the cost of covered outpatient services, including doctor's visits, as a ``copayment'' or coinsurance, and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But Medicare law imposes a special limitation for outpatient mental health services which requires patients to pay a much higher copayment, 50 percent. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries pay two and a half times as much--50 percent coinsurance--for treatment of any mental disorders. Our bill will eliminate the disparity in payment by reducing this discriminatory copayment over a 6-year period, starting in 2006, from the current 50 percent to the standard 20 percent. This means that, in 2012, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment that is required of Medicare patients today who receive outpatient treatment for other illnesses. The goal of our bill is ultimately to achieve ``copayment equity'' for Medicare mental health services. Let me give an example of the current disparity in copayments. If a Medicare patient sees a doctor in an office for treatment of cancer, heart disease, or the flu, the patient must pay 20 percent of the fee for the visit. But if a Medicare patient sees a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional in an office for treatment of depression, schizophrenia, or any other type of mental illness, the patient must pay 50 percent of the fee. What sense does this make? Indeed, our bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction--between treatment of physical and mental disorders--and to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all their health conditions. Perhaps this disparity would not matter so much if mental disorders were less prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. A landmark report of the Surgeon General in 1999 emphasized the importance of access to treatment for mental disorders. The Surgeon General found that mental illness was a leading cause--second only to cardiovascular diseases--of otherwise healthy years of life lost to premature death or disability. The Surgeon General found that the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread, with a substantial portion of the population aged 55 and older--almost 20 percent--experiencing specific disorders that are not a part of ``normal'' aging. Older Americans also have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases with age. In fact, in the State of Maine, the suicide rate for seniors is three times as high as the rate for adolescents. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that untreated depression among the elderly has substantially increased their risk of death by suicide. Another sad irony involves individuals with disabilities. Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65 but it also provides health insurance for those with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for both Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, Medicare pays far less for the critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than it does for medical treatment for their physical disabilities. However, the good news is that, today, there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illness. The majority of people with mental disorders who receive proper treatment can lead productive lives. Congress should remove disincentives that inhibit access to mental health services so that those seeking treatment for these disorders do not have to face financial barriers to care. It is time to remove stigmas and overcome the lack of understanding of mental disorders by equalizing Medicare copayment requirements for mental health services. I urge my colleagues to join with me and bring Medicare payment policy into the 21st century. I would also like to submit letters from the American Psychiatric Association and the Mental Health Liaison Group, 36 national organizations supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my cosponsorship to the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. For those of you who have not had the good fortune to visit one of the crown jewels in the National Park system, Acadia National Park, the first national park established east of the Mississippi, is located on the rugged coast of Maine, encompassing over 47,000 acres that follow the shoreline, go up mountains of sheer granite, dotted with numerous lakes and ponds, diverse habitats that create striking scenery and make the park a haven for wildlife and plants. This past Earth Day was celebrated by one of my staff members along with devotees of the Park on the South Ridge Trail of Cadillac Mountain, the highest point on the U.S. Atlantic coast, on the same ground where the Wabanaki Indians walked over 6,000 years ago. They called the surrounding Mount Desert Island Pemetic, ``the sloping land''. Acadia National Park certainly covers a land of contrast and diversity, with a variety of freshwater, estuarine, forest and intertidal resources and is one of the most visited Parks in the national park system, and rightfully so, as it offers magnificent views from Cadillac Mountain that sweep down 1,530 feet to the rocky coast and ocean below. Besides its natural beauty, the Park brings in $130 million a year into the State's economy. It is because of the great beauty of the Park and its scenic views that I have continued my efforts to achieve cleaner air for the area and for the entire State. The pristine Park is, unfortunately, a good example of how the State is affected by dirty air that blows in from away, estimated to be around 80 percent, that is affecting both the air we breathe and our ability to enjoy the natural beauty of the 47,000 acres of the Park. I am a devoted fan of the Island Explorer bus system, whose clean propane-powered vehicles offer visitors and residents free transportation to hiking trails, the unique carriage roads, the island beaches and for in-town shopping. It is estimated that the Island Explorer buses took the place of an estimated 300,000 vehicles during the last four years, and prevented the release of 24 tons of nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds from car exhaust. I understand that other national parks are considering using the positive benefits of the Island Explorer system as a transportation model for parks all around the country. A great deal of thanks should go to the surrounding towns and to L.L. Bean for financing this successful system that helps to make the air cleaner and adds to our enjoyment of the activities the Park provides. The legislation introduced today will help the Park in three specific areas; one, it will help the Park by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for 20 years giving local residents the opportunity for input into the management of the Park; two, it will increase the authorized ceiling for land acquisition funding by $10 million to $28 million to realize the sharp rise in real estate prices so that properties from willing sellers within the Park's boundaries can be included into the Park; and, three, the legislation will allow the Park to locate an intermodal center outside of park boundaries off of Mt. Desert Island to give even more assistance to the one road entering and exiting the Park by alleviating auto traffic to and on the island and to achieve cleaner air. I will continue to take actions for additions within the Park boundaries, for local input into the management process, for a better public transportation system for the Island that will create a healthier environment, and better support the Park's ecological protections. I look forward to continue working with the people of Mt. Desert Island, the Park's Supervisor, and the Friends of Acadia, a devoted, independent philanthropy that has raised $15 million in private endowments for the Park, on issues important to all of us for the preservation of the beautiful landscape, the ocean's coastline, and for environmental improvements in Acadia National Park, the very place where the first light of day shines on our glorious Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the consideration of H.R. 3, the Highway bill, in conference between the Senate and the House, and to engage the majority leader and Chairman Inhofe in a colloquy. It has come to my attention that the version of H.R. 3 passed by the House contains changes to the Small Business Act, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the small business committees in both chambers. Section 1821 of H.R. 3 as passed by the House would extend the benefits of the Historically Underutilized Business, HUBZone, program to non-metropolitan areas designated as Difficult Development Areas, DDAs, by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, but only if these DDAs are located in states and territories outside the continental United States. The HUBZone program exists to generate market-based development solutions in economically distressed areas by providing federal contracting advantages to small businesses which locate in HUBZones and employ HUB Zone residents. The HUBZone contracting program is codified in the Small Business Act and is administered by the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development of the Small Business Administration. While the HUBZone provision was not included in the Senate version of H.R. 3, had the provision in the House bill proceeded through the Senate committee process, I would have certainly exercised my prerogatives as the Committee Chair. Although I am not requesting a formal appointment as a conferee, I would like to ask my distinguished colleagues, the majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, to commit that no change to the Small Business Act or any program relating to the SBA will be negotiated or agreed to in the Highway bill conference without my consent as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Chairman Inhofe and the majority leader for their commitment and support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my cosponsorship to the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. For those of you who have not had the good fortune to visit one of the crown jewels in the National Park system, Acadia National Park, the first national park established east of the Mississippi, is located on the rugged coast of Maine, encompassing over 47,000 acres that follow the shoreline, go up mountains of sheer granite, dotted with numerous lakes and ponds, diverse habitats that create striking scenery and make the park a haven for wildlife and plants. This past Earth Day was celebrated by one of my staff members along with devotees of the Park on the South Ridge Trail of Cadillac Mountain, the highest point on the U.S. Atlantic coast, on the same ground where the Wabanaki Indians walked over 6,000 years ago. They called the surrounding Mount Desert Island Pemetic, ``the sloping land''. Acadia National Park certainly covers a land of contrast and diversity, with a variety of freshwater, estuarine, forest and intertidal resources and is one of the most visited Parks in the national park system, and rightfully so, as it offers magnificent views from Cadillac Mountain that sweep down 1,530 feet to the rocky coast and ocean below. Besides its natural beauty, the Park brings in $130 million a year into the State's economy. It is because of the great beauty of the Park and its scenic views that I have continued my efforts to achieve cleaner air for the area and for the entire State. The pristine Park is, unfortunately, a good example of how the State is affected by dirty air that blows in from away, estimated to be around 80 percent, that is affecting both the air we breathe and our ability to enjoy the natural beauty of the 47,000 acres of the Park. I am a devoted fan of the Island Explorer bus system, whose clean propane-powered vehicles offer visitors and residents free transportation to hiking trails, the unique carriage roads, the island beaches and for in-town shopping. It is estimated that the Island Explorer buses took the place of an estimated 300,000 vehicles during the last four years, and prevented the release of 24 tons of nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds from car exhaust. I understand that other national parks are considering using the positive benefits of the Island Explorer system as a transportation model for parks all around the country. A great deal of thanks should go to the surrounding towns and to L.L. Bean for financing this successful system that helps to make the air cleaner and adds to our enjoyment of the activities the Park provides. The legislation introduced today will help the Park in three specific areas; one, it will help the Park by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for 20 years giving local residents the opportunity for input into the management of the Park; two, it will increase the authorized ceiling for land acquisition funding by $10 million to $28 million to realize the sharp rise in real estate prices so that properties from willing sellers within the Park's boundaries can be included into the Park; and, three, the legislation will allow the Park to locate an intermodal center outside of park boundaries off of Mt. Desert Island to give even more assistance to the one road entering and exiting the Park by alleviating auto traffic to and on the island and to achieve cleaner air. I will continue to take actions for additions within the Park boundaries, for local input into the management process, for a better public transportation system for the Island that will create a healthier environment, and better support the Park's ecological protections. I look forward to continue working with the people of Mt. Desert Island, the Park's Supervisor, and the Friends of Acadia, a devoted, independent philanthropy that has raised $15 million in private endowments for the Park, on issues important to all of us for the preservation of the beautiful landscape, the ocean's coastline, and for environmental improvements in Acadia National Park, the very place where the first light of day shines on our glorious Nation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2005 with my colleagues, Senator John Kerry, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Susan Collins. Briefly, our bill would correct a serious disparity in Medicare payment policy for mental health treatment. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the cost of covered outpatient services, including doctor's visits, as a ``copayment'' or coinsurance, and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But Medicare law imposes a special limitation for outpatient mental health services which requires patients to pay a much higher copayment, 50 percent. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries pay two and a half times as much--50 percent coinsurance--for treatment of any mental disorders. Our bill will eliminate the disparity in payment by reducing this discriminatory copayment over a 6-year period, starting in 2006, from the current 50 percent to the standard 20 percent. This means that, in 2012, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment that is required of Medicare patients today who receive outpatient treatment for other illnesses. The goal of our bill is ultimately to achieve ``copayment equity'' for Medicare mental health services. Let me give an example of the current disparity in copayments. If a Medicare patient sees a doctor in an office for treatment of cancer, heart disease, or the flu, the patient must pay 20 percent of the fee for the visit. But if a Medicare patient sees a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional in an office for treatment of depression, schizophrenia, or any other type of mental illness, the patient must pay 50 percent of the fee. What sense does this make? Indeed, our bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction--between treatment of physical and mental disorders--and to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all their health conditions. Perhaps this disparity would not matter so much if mental disorders were less prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. A landmark report of the Surgeon General in 1999 emphasized the importance of access to treatment for mental disorders. The Surgeon General found that mental illness was a leading cause--second only to cardiovascular diseases--of otherwise healthy years of life lost to premature death or disability. The Surgeon General found that the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread, with a substantial portion of the population aged 55 and older--almost 20 percent--experiencing specific disorders that are not a part of ``normal'' aging. Older Americans also have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases with age. In fact, in the State of Maine, the suicide rate for seniors is three times as high as the rate for adolescents. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that untreated depression among the elderly has substantially increased their risk of death by suicide. Another sad irony involves individuals with disabilities. Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65 but it also provides health insurance for those with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for both Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, Medicare pays far less for the critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than it does for medical treatment for their physical disabilities. However, the good news is that, today, there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illness. The majority of people with mental disorders who receive proper treatment can lead productive lives. Congress should remove disincentives that inhibit access to mental health services so that those seeking treatment for these disorders do not have to face financial barriers to care. It is time to remove stigmas and overcome the lack of understanding of mental disorders by equalizing Medicare copayment requirements for mental health services. I urge my colleagues to join with me and bring Medicare payment policy into the 21st century. I would also like to submit letters from the American Psychiatric Association and the Mental Health Liaison Group, 36 national organizations supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to ensure the Department of Defense releases both to the Congress and to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission all of the information used in generating its recommendations in the current BRAC round. First, I want to thank the bill's sponsors for their support in this effort--Senators Thune, Collins, Sununu, Murkowski, Domenici, Lieberman, Dodd, Gregg, Lott, Johnson, Corzine, and Bingaman. I appreciate their recognition of the critical importance of ensuring we are given the information it is only right we have with regard to this base closure process. Under the current Base Closing and Realignment statute, the Secretary of Defense shall make: all information used by the Secretary to prepare the recommendations under this subsection available to Congress, including any committee or member of Congress. The Secretary owes this same obligation to the BRAC Commission and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Moreover, the Secretary of Defense is required to produce the data justifying their base closing decisions within 7 days--7 days. The 2005 BRAC list was released on Friday, May 13. Here we are, nearly two weeks later, and the Department of Defense continues to flout a key requirement of the very BRAC statute that gives it base closure authority in the first place. This amounts to a blatant refusal by the Pentagon to back up its highly questionable decisions to close a number of military facilities that are absolutely irreplaceable and indispensable to our national security. Closing bases--or effectively shuttering them through massive realignment--of the magnitude that we are dealing with could only have been made by ignoring or misapplying BRAC criteria. The Defense Department's subsequent refusal to release the very data on which such decisions were made effectively shrouds the entire process in secrecy, depriving the bases and communities impacted, as well as the BRAC Commission, from gaining access to the very data needed to review the Pentagon's decisions. What type of data am I talking about? To us a few examples from my own office's experience, the Department of the Navy has yet to release a detailed breakdown of cost of closure assessments, including factors applied by the COBRA model if they did not do actual cost estimates. We have yet to see all of the options considered by the Chief of Naval Operations or the Vice Chief of Naval Operations to reduce excess capacity in shipyards, including closure, realignment, workload shifts and private sector capacity. We have still not received a detailed breakdown of cost of operations assessment, including shipyard and base costs. These are just a few specific examples of what has not been provided. Other general categories would include data on the economic impact on existing communities, the degree to which the Defense Department looked into the ability of Maine's bases to accommodate future mission capabilities, and the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, environmental compliance restoration, readiness, future mission requirements. There are a number of such issues that are included in the base closing statute that requires the Defense Department to consider in making its evaluation and making, as well, its original determination, in terms of which bases they would recommend for closure or realignment. The Defense Department's stall tactics are most acutely felt by those currently preparing to make presentations before realignment or closure of their specific bases. Here we are, on May 25, almost 2 weeks after the release of the base-closing list, and yet this critical data is still being sequestered behind Pentagon walls, and the communities affected by these closures are now forced to fly blind as they make their cases before the base-closing commission. How hamstrung are these advocates, including many of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives? Allow me to elaborate. The first base-closing hearings are expected to take place in Salt Lake City on June 7, less than 2 weeks from now. How are the advocates for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho or Defense Finance and Accounting Service stations in Kansas City and St. Louis supposed to prepare for a case, for a hearing in less than 2 weeks with this critical data being withheld? The scheduled base-closing hearings to follow are no less forgiving. In fact, between June 15 and June 30, base-closing commission hearings will be held in the following cities: Fairbanks, AK; Portland, OR; Rapid City, SD; Dallas, TX; Grand Forks, ND; Clovis, NM; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; and Atlanta, GA. In my case, in the State of Maine, in Portsmouth, NH, for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, for Brunswick Air Force station, for the Defense Accounting Service in Limestone, ME, those will be scheduled on July 6 in Boston. We are all working feverishly, as many of my colleagues are, along with State governments and all officials, to get our presentations for these most vital and critical hearings in order. Yet given the current blackout of backup data, that task is akin to defending one's self in a criminal case without the prosecutor putting forth the supposedly incriminating evidence. This Department of Defense has taken foot dragging and obfuscation to new state-of-the-art levels. The bill I am introducing today will make clear that this delinquency will result in serious consequences. So the legislation I am introducing is very straightforward and to the point. First, it states that the Department of Defense has 7 days from the date of the enactment of this law in which to release all of its supporting data for its realignment and closure decisions. Second, if this 7-day deadline is not met, the entire base-closing process of 2005 is canceled. Third, even if this deadline is met, all the base- closing statutory deadlines are pushed back by the number of days that the Defense Department delayed in producing this data. This legislation is the full embodiment of fairness and due process. It ensures that those bases in communities attempting to prevent closures or realignment have access to the same facts the Pentagon did, and that failure to provide that information will carry appropriate consequences. And it is our last chance to reverse the egregious decisions made in the closing and realignment process. The integrity of the base-closing process and of the decisions that are made on individual facilities depends on the accuracy of the data used and on the validity of the calculations and comparisons made using this data. Congress and the base-closing commission simply cannot discharge their responsibilities under the base-closing statute without this most vital information. It would be bad enough if it were only the Congress and the Commission that were being hindered in carrying out our collective duties with regard to the base-closing process. But it is the communities where these bases are located that are suffering the greatest harm through their inability to find out what the basis of the Department's decision to close these installations was. These towns and cities that have supported these bases for decades-- or in some cases, like Kittery, ME, and Portsmouth, NH; Brunswick Air Station in Limestone, ME, for centuries--are being harmed through DOD's continued delay in making this data available. The community groups are handicapped in their efforts to understand the Department's base- closing analysis, assumptions, and conclusions therefore in their efforts to provide accurate rebuttal arguments or information to the Commission that the Department of Defense may not have considered. So the communities not only have suffered the shock of potentially losing what is in most cases the single most important economic engine in their communities, but to add insult to injury, have not been given the full picture of why these installations they rely upon and that relied upon them was among those chosen to close. That cannot be allowed to stand. Indeed, I am certain DOD will realize it cannot continue to withhold this information and will ultimately get to the bottom of this. We will then be able to see the weaknesses in the Navy's arguments with respect to the facilities in Maine. We will see that the facts indisputably prove there is no way to reasonably conclude this Nation should forfeit the long and distinguished history embodied in these facilities in a critical report like Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or Brunswick Naval Air Station that are unequal in their performance. We will also make sure the base-closing commission has the information with respect to the role that the Defense Accounting Services has played in Limestone, ME, the very anchor for the conversion of the former Loring Air Force Base closed in one of the last rounds of 1991 that certainly devastated that area and the State of Maine when we lost more than 10,000 that led to the outmigration of more than 20,000 in our northern county. It really was devastating to also learn that the Department of Defense decided to select Defense Accounting Services not only in Limestone but across this country. It was the very anchor for conversion to help mitigate the loss of this most crucial base up in northern Maine. We will see that the facts undisputedly prove that the Navy ignored aspects of the base-closing criteria that I happen to believe can only lead to a finding that Brunswick Naval Air Station, as the only remaining fully operational airfield in the Northeastern United States, plays a singular, critical role in this Nation's homeland security and homeland defense posture and must continue to do so in the future. It really was inconceivable to me that the Department of Defense would also recommend closing Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the finest shipyard of its kind in the U.S. Navy. In fact, the day before the base-closing list was announced on May 13, the Secretary of the Navy issued a Meritorious Unit Commendation to Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for, in its words, ``superbly and consistently performing its missions,'' establishing benchmarks above and beyond both the public and private sector, having established, in their words, again, ``a phenomenal track record'' when it came to cost and quality and schedule and safety. In fact, it had just been awarded the top safety award--the only facility in the Department of Defense and the only facility in the Navy, and only the second in the Department of Defense. That is a remarkable track record. It also saves money for the taxpayers, and it saves time and money for the Navy. In fact, when it comes to refuelings at Kittery- Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, it saves $75 million on average compared to the other yards that do the same work. It saves $20 million when it comes to overhauls compared to the other yards that do the same work. It saves 6 months in time in sending the ships back to sea sooner on refuelings compared to the other yards that do the same work. And it saves 3 months in time on overhauls compared to other yards that do the same work. So one would argue, and certainly would ask the question, as I did of the Secretary of the Navy, what message does that send to the men and women of that shipyard when they are the overachievers, doing the best work and told they are No. 1 of its kind in its category, and we are saying, well, we are going to transfer that work elsewhere, to those who have not performed the equivalent result when it comes to time and money. They are No. 1. But we are sending a message to those who are the best, we tell them the next day, well, you know what. You are doing such a great job that we have decided to close. When it comes to Brunswick Naval Air Station, it is the only remaining active military airfield in the Northeast. The Northeast is home to 18 percent of America's population. It was, obviously, the region that received the most devastating attack on American soil on September 11. And now we hear from the Defense Department that we want to realign this base--essentially, it is tantamount to closure--when it is a state-of-the-art facility, well positioned strategically, with unincumbered airspace of 63,000 miles--space of which to expand many times over--well positioned on our coastline for conducting surveillance in the North Atlantic sealane so important to extending the maritime domain awareness of the Coast Guard when it comes to one of the greatest threats facing America; that is, the shipments of weapons of mass destruction. So it raises a number of questions as to why these facilities were designated by the Department of Defense for closure. What is even more disturbing is that in order to make the case before the base-closing commission, in an extremely limited period of time compared to the four previous base-closing rounds--which I am intimately familiar with, having been part of them in the past; we had 6 months--in this base-closing round, we have 4 months. It is on an expedited timeframe; therefore, it makes it even more difficult, more problematic, to make your case, when every day is going to count, and the Department of Defense is withholding all of the information upon which we have to make our case. We are required by law to have that information because in order to make your case, you have to prove that the Department of Defense deviated substantially--deviated substantially--from the criteria in the base-closing statute when it comes to military value, operational readiness, the closing costs, the costs of operations of that particular facility, the economic impacts, so on and so on. Now, it certainly is a mystery to me as to how the Defense Department could have made all these decisions--33 major base closings and another 29 realignments and many more for adjustments--and yet they cannot ensure that the information and the data they utilized is forthcoming. Well, then, it just raises the question, How did they make these decisions in the first place? Why have they not readily turned over the information that we require in order to make our case? For the Commission to overturn a decision recommendation by the Department of Defense, it requires us to make a case that they deviated substantially from the criteria set forth in the base-closing statute. So it is obvious we need the information because not to have the information they used inhibits us and prohibits us from making the documentations that are required under the law. I think it is a fundamental flouting of the law. We have insisted, day in and day out, we need this information. We deserve to have this information. The men and women who work at these military facilities who serve our country deserve to have this information. It is important to our national security interests because we need to know the information upon which this Defense Department predicated its assumptions. And it is not enough just to get their conclusions, it is not enough just to get their assumptions, we need all of the empirical data that was used to make those assumptions and conclusions. How did they arrive at those decisions? For example, when you look at the force structure of submarines, the new attack submarines, on which the Portsmouth Naval Yard works, those decisions have to be predicated on 55 attack submarines, 55. That was included in the base-closing criteria, 2004. The force structure at that time was 55 attack submarines--still is--but the Department of Defense is changing their force structure after they already made the recommendations. How can they make a recommendation based on 55 attack submarines but then decide, well, maybe a year later we can reduce that number? We have already made the decision. It raises a considerable number of questions about the flawed information and the flawed process. Yet we have not had an opportunity to evaluate it. We have lost a critical 2 weeks in this process and, again, as I said, on a very expedited timeframe in which to make these decisions, to evaluate the information, and to submit our case before the base-closing commission in the scheduled hearings over this next month. If the Department of Defense does not provide this information in a timely manner, then this round of base closings is fundamentally flawed and is designed to close critical military infrastructure at a time when our Nation faces a changing, unpredictable threat environment, and, therefore, it should be brought to an end. If they cannot provide this information in a timely fashion, that is exactly what should occur. I believe it does really underscore the integrity and the lack of the integrity in this process because it certainly stands to reason, and certainly it is a fair assumption to make, that the Department of Defense should be able to turn over instantaneously all of the information they used to make these critical decisions. After all, they have had a considerable period of time in which to make these decisions. So, therefore, it should not be very difficult to provide that information. But we continue to get the consistent stonewalling and obfuscation that is preventing us from evaluating these decisions in order to do what is required under the law to demonstrate how these decisions are faulty and to evaluate the information. We deserve no less than that. So I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort to compel the Department of Defense to stand up and be accountable for this decisionmaking process and to release the data that we deserve that led to these decisions with respect to base closings so we understand exactly how they arrived at their decisions that are so critical and central to our national security. I regret we are in this position in the first place. I opposed this base-closing process. It certainly should have been deferred. We should have considered the overseas base closings before we looked at domestic installations. In fact, that certainly was an issue in the overseas base-closing report that was issued recently. So we do not have an overall structure in which to consider the macroplans. That is what should have been done. We should be looking at all these issues in a totality because we are in a very different environment than we were even pre-September 11, 2001, and our threat environment has to be looked through an entirely different prism. In fact, as I mentioned on the floor just about a year ago, in attempting to defer this process until we had a chance to evaluate overseas bases, one of the issues I looked at was the track record of the Department of Defense in terms of ascertaining the future threat environments. What could they anticipate were future threats? I have to say that I was somewhat shocked by the findings because I evaluated the force structure reports and military threat assessments that were required to be accompanied with the base-closing rounds in previous years. It was interesting. I decided to discern, exactly when did they anticipate a threat of terrorism, asymmetric threats, or threats to our homeland security? And it was a startling and abysmal picture because they had a significantly flawed track record. The first time that a threat to our homeland security was even mentioned was in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997. Mr. President, 1997--that was 4 years before September 11. At that time, with the previous base- closing rounds, these base-closing commissions were required to make a 6-year outlook for the potential threats and anticipated threats--6 years. Now, with this base-closing round, it requires 20 years. But even with 6 years out, they could not even discern a threat to our homeland security. They mentioned it in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997, but it was a fourth-tier concern. And that was 4 years out from September 11--4 years out from September 11. Nineteen days after September 11, we had another quadrennial defense review issued by the Department of Defense. Al-Qaida wasn't even mentioned in that quadrennial defense review. It wasn't even mentioned 19 days after September 11. So I think that gives you a measure of the understanding that the Department of Defense has not had an accurate or reliable determination of potential threats this country could face--not even 4 years out, not even 19 days after September 11--to the degree that al-Qaida was a threat to this country. That is the problem, Mr. President. We do not have an accurate picture. This base-closing round is required to ascertain the threat environment and projecting 20 years out. Mind you, over the last more than 10 years, all throughout the nineties, when we had the World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya, and Tanzania, all throughout that decade--and we had the USS Cole in 2000--there was only one time in that decade there was a mention of homeland security in any fashion. I think that is pretty telling. So the fact that the Department of Defense cannot bring forward the information that validates or invalidates their assumptions and conclusions is particularly troubling in this threat environment. I regret we are in the situation today of having to beg, plead, and persuade to try to get some glimmer into the insights, into the documentation evaluation they made in reaching these final conclusions. More than anything else, the statute requires those to be making the case before the Base Closing Commission to determine how the Department of Defense deviated substantially from the criteria. How are we to know, if they don't depend upon the very department who makes the decision, has the information, and has yet to transmit them forthwith to all of the respective delegations and officials who are given the opportunity to make the case before the Base Closing Commission?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to ensure the Department of Defense releases both to the Congress and to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission all of the information used in generating its recommendations in the current BRAC round. First, I want to thank the bill's sponsors for their support in this effort--Senators Thune, Collins, Sununu, Murkowski, Domenici, Lieberman, Dodd, Gregg, Lott, Johnson, Corzine, and Bingaman. I appreciate their recognition of the critical importance of ensuring we are given the information it is only right we have with regard to this base closure process. Under the current Base Closing and Realignment statute, the Secretary of Defense shall make: all information used by the Secretary to prepare the recommendations under this subsection available to Congress, including any committee or member of Congress. The Secretary owes this same obligation to the BRAC Commission and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Moreover, the Secretary of Defense is required to produce the data justifying their base closing decisions within 7 days--7 days. The 2005 BRAC list was released on Friday, May 13. Here we are, nearly two weeks later, and the Department of Defense continues to flout a key requirement of the very BRAC statute that gives it base closure authority in the first place. This amounts to a blatant refusal by the Pentagon to back up its highly questionable decisions to close a number of military facilities that are absolutely irreplaceable and indispensable to our national security. Closing bases--or effectively shuttering them through massive realignment--of the magnitude that we are dealing with could only have been made by ignoring or misapplying BRAC criteria. The Defense Department's subsequent refusal to release the very data on which such decisions were made effectively shrouds the entire process in secrecy, depriving the bases and communities impacted, as well as the BRAC Commission, from gaining access to the very data needed to review the Pentagon's decisions. What type of data am I talking about? To us a few examples from my own office's experience, the Department of the Navy has yet to release a detailed breakdown of cost of closure assessments, including factors applied by the COBRA model if they did not do actual cost estimates. We have yet to see all of the options considered by the Chief of Naval Operations or the Vice Chief of Naval Operations to reduce excess capacity in shipyards, including closure, realignment, workload shifts and private sector capacity. We have still not received a detailed breakdown of cost of operations assessment, including shipyard and base costs. These are just a few specific examples of what has not been provided. Other general categories would include data on the economic impact on existing communities, the degree to which the Defense Department looked into the ability of Maine's bases to accommodate future mission capabilities, and the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, environmental compliance restoration, readiness, future mission requirements. There are a number of such issues that are included in the base closing statute that requires the Defense Department to consider in making its evaluation and making, as well, its original determination, in terms of which bases they would recommend for closure or realignment. The Defense Department's stall tactics are most acutely felt by those currently preparing to make presentations before realignment or closure of their specific bases. Here we are, on May 25, almost 2 weeks after the release of the base-closing list, and yet this critical data is still being sequestered behind Pentagon walls, and the communities affected by these closures are now forced to fly blind as they make their cases before the base-closing commission. How hamstrung are these advocates, including many of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives? Allow me to elaborate. The first base-closing hearings are expected to take place in Salt Lake City on June 7, less than 2 weeks from now. How are the advocates for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho or Defense Finance and Accounting Service stations in Kansas City and St. Louis supposed to prepare for a case, for a hearing in less than 2 weeks with this critical data being withheld? The scheduled base-closing hearings to follow are no less forgiving. In fact, between June 15 and June 30, base-closing commission hearings will be held in the following cities: Fairbanks, AK; Portland, OR; Rapid City, SD; Dallas, TX; Grand Forks, ND; Clovis, NM; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; and Atlanta, GA. In my case, in the State of Maine, in Portsmouth, NH, for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, for Brunswick Air Force station, for the Defense Accounting Service in Limestone, ME, those will be scheduled on July 6 in Boston. We are all working feverishly, as many of my colleagues are, along with State governments and all officials, to get our presentations for these most vital and critical hearings in order. Yet given the current blackout of backup data, that task is akin to defending one's self in a criminal case without the prosecutor putting forth the supposedly incriminating evidence. This Department of Defense has taken foot dragging and obfuscation to new state-of-the-art levels. The bill I am introducing today will make clear that this delinquency will result in serious consequences. So the legislation I am introducing is very straightforward and to the point. First, it states that the Department of Defense has 7 days from the date of the enactment of this law in which to release all of its supporting data for its realignment and closure decisions. Second, if this 7-day deadline is not met, the entire base-closing process of 2005 is canceled. Third, even if this deadline is met, all the base- closing statutory deadlines are pushed back by the number of days that the Defense Department delayed in producing this data. This legislation is the full embodiment of fairness and due process. It ensures that those bases in communities attempting to prevent closures or realignment have access to the same facts the Pentagon did, and that failure to provide that information will carry appropriate consequences. And it is our last chance to reverse the egregious decisions made in the closing and realignment process. The integrity of the base-closing process and of the decisions that are made on individual facilities depends on the accuracy of the data used and on the validity of the calculations and comparisons made using this data. Congress and the base-closing commission simply cannot discharge their responsibilities under the base-closing statute without this most vital information. It would be bad enough if it were only the Congress and the Commission that were being hindered in carrying out our collective duties with regard to the base-closing process. But it is the communities where these bases are located that are suffering the greatest harm through their inability to find out what the basis of the Department's decision to close these installations was. These towns and cities that have supported these bases for decades-- or in some cases, like Kittery, ME, and Portsmouth, NH; Brunswick Air Station in Limestone, ME, for centuries--are being harmed through DOD's continued delay in making this data available. The community groups are handicapped in their efforts to understand the Department's base- closing analysis, assumptions, and conclusions therefore in their efforts to provide accurate rebuttal arguments or information to the Commission that the Department of Defense may not have considered. So the communities not only have suffered the shock of potentially losing what is in most cases the single most important economic engine in their communities, but to add insult to injury, have not been given the full picture of why these installations they rely upon and that relied upon them was among those chosen to close. That cannot be allowed to stand. Indeed, I am certain DOD will realize it cannot continue to withhold this information and will ultimately get to the bottom of this. We will then be able to see the weaknesses in the Navy's arguments with respect to the facilities in Maine. We will see that the facts indisputably prove there is no way to reasonably conclude this Nation should forfeit the long and distinguished history embodied in these facilities in a critical report like Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or Brunswick Naval Air Station that are unequal in their performance. We will also make sure the base-closing commission has the information with respect to the role that the Defense Accounting Services has played in Limestone, ME, the very anchor for the conversion of the former Loring Air Force Base closed in one of the last rounds of 1991 that certainly devastated that area and the State of Maine when we lost more than 10,000 that led to the outmigration of more than 20,000 in our northern county. It really was devastating to also learn that the Department of Defense decided to select Defense Accounting Services not only in Limestone but across this country. It was the very anchor for conversion to help mitigate the loss of this most crucial base up in northern Maine. We will see that the facts undisputedly prove that the Navy ignored aspects of the base-closing criteria that I happen to believe can only lead to a finding that Brunswick Naval Air Station, as the only remaining fully operational airfield in the Northeastern United States, plays a singular, critical role in this Nation's homeland security and homeland defense posture and must continue to do so in the future. It really was inconceivable to me that the Department of Defense would also recommend closing Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the finest shipyard of its kind in the U.S. Navy. In fact, the day before the base-closing list was announced on May 13, the Secretary of the Navy issued a Meritorious Unit Commendation to Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for, in its words, ``superbly and consistently performing its missions,'' establishing benchmarks above and beyond both the public and private sector, having established, in their words, again, ``a phenomenal track record'' when it came to cost and quality and schedule and safety. In fact, it had just been awarded the top safety award--the only facility in the Department of Defense and the only facility in the Navy, and only the second in the Department of Defense. That is a remarkable track record. It also saves money for the taxpayers, and it saves time and money for the Navy. In fact, when it comes to refuelings at Kittery- Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, it saves $75 million on average compared to the other yards that do the same work. It saves $20 million when it comes to overhauls compared to the other yards that do the same work. It saves 6 months in time in sending the ships back to sea sooner on refuelings compared to the other yards that do the same work. And it saves 3 months in time on overhauls compared to other yards that do the same work. So one would argue, and certainly would ask the question, as I did of the Secretary of the Navy, what message does that send to the men and women of that shipyard when they are the overachievers, doing the best work and told they are No. 1 of its kind in its category, and we are saying, well, we are going to transfer that work elsewhere, to those who have not performed the equivalent result when it comes to time and money. They are No. 1. But we are sending a message to those who are the best, we tell them the next day, well, you know what. You are doing such a great job that we have decided to close. When it comes to Brunswick Naval Air Station, it is the only remaining active military airfield in the Northeast. The Northeast is home to 18 percent of America's population. It was, obviously, the region that received the most devastating attack on American soil on September 11. And now we hear from the Defense Department that we want to realign this base--essentially, it is tantamount to closure--when it is a state-of-the-art facility, well positioned strategically, with unincumbered airspace of 63,000 miles--space of which to expand many times over--well positioned on our coastline for conducting surveillance in the North Atlantic sealane so important to extending the maritime domain awareness of the Coast Guard when it comes to one of the greatest threats facing America; that is, the shipments of weapons of mass destruction. So it raises a number of questions as to why these facilities were designated by the Department of Defense for closure. What is even more disturbing is that in order to make the case before the base-closing commission, in an extremely limited period of time compared to the four previous base-closing rounds--which I am intimately familiar with, having been part of them in the past; we had 6 months--in this base-closing round, we have 4 months. It is on an expedited timeframe; therefore, it makes it even more difficult, more problematic, to make your case, when every day is going to count, and the Department of Defense is withholding all of the information upon which we have to make our case. We are required by law to have that information because in order to make your case, you have to prove that the Department of Defense deviated substantially--deviated substantially--from the criteria in the base-closing statute when it comes to military value, operational readiness, the closing costs, the costs of operations of that particular facility, the economic impacts, so on and so on. Now, it certainly is a mystery to me as to how the Defense Department could have made all these decisions--33 major base closings and another 29 realignments and many more for adjustments--and yet they cannot ensure that the information and the data they utilized is forthcoming. Well, then, it just raises the question, How did they make these decisions in the first place? Why have they not readily turned over the information that we require in order to make our case? For the Commission to overturn a decision recommendation by the Department of Defense, it requires us to make a case that they deviated substantially from the criteria set forth in the base-closing statute. So it is obvious we need the information because not to have the information they used inhibits us and prohibits us from making the documentations that are required under the law. I think it is a fundamental flouting of the law. We have insisted, day in and day out, we need this information. We deserve to have this information. The men and women who work at these military facilities who serve our country deserve to have this information. It is important to our national security interests because we need to know the information upon which this Defense Department predicated its assumptions. And it is not enough just to get their conclusions, it is not enough just to get their assumptions, we need all of the empirical data that was used to make those assumptions and conclusions. How did they arrive at those decisions? For example, when you look at the force structure of submarines, the new attack submarines, on which the Portsmouth Naval Yard works, those decisions have to be predicated on 55 attack submarines, 55. That was included in the base-closing criteria, 2004. The force structure at that time was 55 attack submarines--still is--but the Department of Defense is changing their force structure after they already made the recommendations. How can they make a recommendation based on 55 attack submarines but then decide, well, maybe a year later we can reduce that number? We have already made the decision. It raises a considerable number of questions about the flawed information and the flawed process. Yet we have not had an opportunity to evaluate it. We have lost a critical 2 weeks in this process and, again, as I said, on a very expedited timeframe in which to make these decisions, to evaluate the information, and to submit our case before the base-closing commission in the scheduled hearings over this next month. If the Department of Defense does not provide this information in a timely manner, then this round of base closings is fundamentally flawed and is designed to close critical military infrastructure at a time when our Nation faces a changing, unpredictable threat environment, and, therefore, it should be brought to an end. If they cannot provide this information in a timely fashion, that is exactly what should occur. I believe it does really underscore the integrity and the lack of the integrity in this process because it certainly stands to reason, and certainly it is a fair assumption to make, that the Department of Defense should be able to turn over instantaneously all of the information they used to make these critical decisions. After all, they have had a considerable period of time in which to make these decisions. So, therefore, it should not be very difficult to provide that information. But we continue to get the consistent stonewalling and obfuscation that is preventing us from evaluating these decisions in order to do what is required under the law to demonstrate how these decisions are faulty and to evaluate the information. We deserve no less than that. So I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort to compel the Department of Defense to stand up and be accountable for this decisionmaking process and to release the data that we deserve that led to these decisions with respect to base closings so we understand exactly how they arrived at their decisions that are so critical and central to our national security. I regret we are in this position in the first place. I opposed this base-closing process. It certainly should have been deferred. We should have considered the overseas base closings before we looked at domestic installations. In fact, that certainly was an issue in the overseas base-closing report that was issued recently. So we do not have an overall structure in which to consider the macroplans. That is what should have been done. We should be looking at all these issues in a totality because we are in a very different environment than we were even pre-September 11, 2001, and our threat environment has to be looked through an entirely different prism. In fact, as I mentioned on the floor just about a year ago, in attempting to defer this process until we had a chance to evaluate overseas bases, one of the issues I looked at was the track record of the Department of Defense in terms of ascertaining the future threat environments. What could they anticipate were future threats? I have to say that I was somewhat shocked by the findings because I evaluated the force structure reports and military threat assessments that were required to be accompanied with the base-closing rounds in previous years. It was interesting. I decided to discern, exactly when did they anticipate a threat of terrorism, asymmetric threats, or threats to our homeland security? And it was a startling and abysmal picture because they had a significantly flawed track record. The first time that a threat to our homeland security was even mentioned was in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997. Mr. President, 1997--that was 4 years before September 11. At that time, with the previous base- closing rounds, these base-closing commissions were required to make a 6-year outlook for the potential threats and anticipated threats--6 years. Now, with this base-closing round, it requires 20 years. But even with 6 years out, they could not even discern a threat to our homeland security. They mentioned it in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997, but it was a fourth-tier concern. And that was 4 years out from September 11--4 years out from September 11. Nineteen days after September 11, we had another quadrennial defense review issued by the Department of Defense. Al-Qaida wasn't even mentioned in that quadrennial defense review. It wasn't even mentioned 19 days after September 11. So I think that gives you a measure of the understanding that the Department of Defense has not had an accurate or reliable determination of potential threats this country could face--not even 4 years out, not even 19 days after September 11--to the degree that al-Qaida was a threat to this country. That is the problem, Mr. President. We do not have an accurate picture. This base-closing round is required to ascertain the threat environment and projecting 20 years out. Mind you, over the last more than 10 years, all throughout the nineties, when we had the World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya, and Tanzania, all throughout that decade--and we had the USS Cole in 2000--there was only one time in that decade there was a mention of homeland security in any fashion. I think that is pretty telling. So the fact that the Department of Defense cannot bring forward the information that validates or invalidates their assumptions and conclusions is particularly troubling in this threat environment. I regret we are in the situation today of having to beg, plead, and persuade to try to get some glimmer into the insights, into the documentation evaluation they made in reaching these final conclusions. More than anything else, the statute requires those to be making the case before the Base Closing Commission to determine how the Department of Defense deviated substantially from the criteria. How are we to know, if they don't depend upon the very department who makes the decision, has the information, and has yet to transmit them forthwith to all of the respective delegations and officials who are given the opportunity to make the case before the Base Closing Commission?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that is both timely and vital to the future of the world's large whale populations. In little more than a month, representatives from around the world will gather in South Korea for the 57th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission. These representatives will consider proposals to weaken or lift the moratorium on commercial whaling and expand whaling operations around the globe. It is more critical than ever that the United States remains firmly opposed to any proposals to resume commercial whaling and maintain its leadership role in shaping global whale conservation policies through the Commission. The Commission's early attempts to regulate commercial whaling did not stop the precipitous decline of whale populations around the world. This management failure exposed a dramatic lack of knowledge and understanding of whales and their environment. In response to dwindling whale populations, the Commission declared a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. The United States was a leader in the efforts to establish this moratorium, and in the intervening decades we have continued our outspoken opposition to commercial whaling. My colleagues and I are submitting this resolution to give needed support to the U.S. negotiators as they strive to preserve vital whale conservation measures through the International Whaling Commission. Pro-whaling countries have made clear, through numerous media outlets, that they plan to work to lift the moratorium at this year's meeting, a move that threatens to undo years of international efforts to recover whale populations. As a Nation we must stand firmly against lifting of the moratorium and the resumption of commercial whaling. But we cannot stop there. As we continue our international efforts for effective, global whale conservation we must work to close loopholes in, and end abuses of, Commission regulations. This resolution calls for the closing of a scientific whaling loophole that some countries are exploiting to allow whaling, not just in the open ocean, but in designated whale sanctuaries. Lethal scientific whaling is an outdated concept that serves no useful purpose; even the Commission's own Scientific Committee has called for the cessation of this practice. In addition to the scientific whaling provision, some countries choose to take reservations to the moratorium under which they continue to expand commercial whaling activities year after year. These unilateral actions weaken the Commission and undermine international whale conservation efforts; therefore, they must be brought to an end. We must consider the future as we strive to ensure the sustainability of the world's whale populations. At this year's meeting, the Commission may address the critical issue of a Revised Management Scheme, or RMS, to govern whale conservation in future years. As we consider possible management systems, it is imperative that we build any RMS on a solid foundation of scientific knowledge and sustainability. If our Nation is to support any RMS, we must ensure that it addresses the need for additional research and ensure that all whaling outside the scheme ceases immediately. Any RMS that we are party to must also include provisions that we find in other international fisheries agreements, such as transparency in decision making, objective observers, and effective compliance mechanisms. I thank my colleagues who have already signed on as co-sponsors of this resolution for their continuing commitment to marine conservation: Senators Cantwell, Levin, Kennedy, McCain, Lieberman, Kerry, Collins, Biden, Jeffords, Dodd, Lautenberg, Reed, Wyden, Boxer, Feinstein, Pryor, and Akaka. Their dedication to responsible protection and management of our whale populations helps ensure the healthy functioning of marine ecosystems for generations to come. Whales constitute a vital component of the world's marine ecosystems. Whales are some of the largest and most intelligent mammals on Earth, and conserving them requires us to uphold strong international agreements and an unwavering commitment to science-based management. Supporting whale conservation is more critical now than ever, and I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Supporting Our Patriotic Businesses Act. This bill addresses some key concerns I have regarding the impact that military call-ups have on our Nation's small businesses. Today, I am offering my legislation in conjunction with the release of a Congressional Budget Office Report entitled ``The Impact of Reserve Call-ups on Civilian Employers.'' I commissioned the Report a year and a half ago, because I believed then, as I do now, that our country is not doing enough for the patriotic small businesses that are owned by or employ our Guard and Reserve members; and which are negatively effected when these workers are called up in defense of our Nation. Although I am still analyzing the Report, three key findings immediately caught my attention. For instance, the Report concludes that: 1. Thirty-five percent of Guard and Reserve members work for small businesses or are self-employed, twenty-six percent work for large businesses, thirty-six percent work for the government, Federal, State, or local, and the remainder work for non-profit organizations. Therefore, the majority of non-government employed Guard and Reserve members are either self-employed, or work for small businesses. 2. Over the past decade, the military has dramatically increased its reliance on Guard and Reserve forces. This trend has accelerated since the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001. Guard and Reserve members make up about thirty-three percent of deployed service members supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 3. I am particularly troubled by a third finding which confirms what I have feared all along--that the self-employed, and the small businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members, may be ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased Guard and Reserve member call-ups. The burden is further magnified when it is the small business owner, or a key employee, who is deployed. As members of this institution charged with the duty of preserving the public trust, we should work together, on a bipartisan basis, to help diminish the unfair burden these employers and self-employed businesses shoulder. It is difficult enough to leave friends and family behind and enter harm's way, but asking our military personnel to also jeopardize their livelihood is unconscionable. By assisting these businesses and the self-employed, we are helping to diminish important concerns of our military personnel, improving their morale and positively affecting retention. The legislation that I offer today contains multiple provisions in support of self-employed Guard and Reserve members and the patriotic businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members. First, it authorizes increased appropriations for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Veteran Business Development, which offers vital services to our Nation's small businesses that are owned or employ our veterans. For instance, the office has prepared and distributed pre- and post-mobilization packets for small businesses, offers loans, and provides targeted business advice to meet the needs of our veterans and small businesses. My bill permanently extends the authority and duties of the SBA's Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, which has served as an invaluable independent source of advice and policy on veterans' business issues. My legislation provides that a service member does not need to satisfy any continuing education requirements, imposed with respect to their profession or occupation, while they are called up, or within the 120-day period after they are released from the call-up. I have also included a provision which amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the length of time that their owners are called up in defense of our Nation. Currently, small business owners who are called up to active duty in the Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized for serving because their active duty time is counted against the time limitations on participation of the Small Business Administration's programs. Finally, my bill requires that the Department of Defense take measures to counsel Guard and Reserve members concerning the importance of notifying their employers in a timely manner after they receive Orders that they will be called up to active duty. The legislation further requires that the DoD investigate ways to diminish the lag between the time when military personnel are notified of their call-up and the time that military personnel notify their employers. Enacting this legislation is an important first step in the right direction toward assisting the brave men and women who serve in our Guard and Reserve and the businesses that employ them. However, I realize that this legislation is merely one of many steps that can and should be taken to this end and welcome new ideas to help this constituency. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and to continue to work with me, as well as veterans, policymakers, businesses, and others, to find additional solutions to address these vital issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section- by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this pressing matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Supporting Our Patriotic Businesses Act. This bill addresses some key concerns I have regarding the impact that military call-ups have on our Nation's small businesses. Today, I am offering my legislation in conjunction with the release of a Congressional Budget Office Report entitled ``The Impact of Reserve Call-ups on Civilian Employers.'' I commissioned the Report a year and a half ago, because I believed then, as I do now, that our country is not doing enough for the patriotic small businesses that are owned by or employ our Guard and Reserve members; and which are negatively effected when these workers are called up in defense of our Nation. Although I am still analyzing the Report, three key findings immediately caught my attention. For instance, the Report concludes that: 1. Thirty-five percent of Guard and Reserve members work for small businesses or are self-employed, twenty-six percent work for large businesses, thirty-six percent work for the government, Federal, State, or local, and the remainder work for non-profit organizations. Therefore, the majority of non-government employed Guard and Reserve members are either self-employed, or work for small businesses. 2. Over the past decade, the military has dramatically increased its reliance on Guard and Reserve forces. This trend has accelerated since the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001. Guard and Reserve members make up about thirty-three percent of deployed service members supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 3. I am particularly troubled by a third finding which confirms what I have feared all along--that the self-employed, and the small businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members, may be ``paying'' a disproportionate and unfair share of the burden of increased Guard and Reserve member call-ups. The burden is further magnified when it is the small business owner, or a key employee, who is deployed. As members of this institution charged with the duty of preserving the public trust, we should work together, on a bipartisan basis, to help diminish the unfair burden these employers and self-employed businesses shoulder. It is difficult enough to leave friends and family behind and enter harm's way, but asking our military personnel to also jeopardize their livelihood is unconscionable. By assisting these businesses and the self-employed, we are helping to diminish important concerns of our military personnel, improving their morale and positively affecting retention. The legislation that I offer today contains multiple provisions in support of self-employed Guard and Reserve members and the patriotic businesses that employ Guard and Reserve members. First, it authorizes increased appropriations for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Veteran Business Development, which offers vital services to our Nation's small businesses that are owned or employ our veterans. For instance, the office has prepared and distributed pre- and post-mobilization packets for small businesses, offers loans, and provides targeted business advice to meet the needs of our veterans and small businesses. My bill permanently extends the authority and duties of the SBA's Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, which has served as an invaluable independent source of advice and policy on veterans' business issues. My legislation provides that a service member does not need to satisfy any continuing education requirements, imposed with respect to their profession or occupation, while they are called up, or within the 120-day period after they are released from the call-up. I have also included a provision which amends the Small Business Act by allowing small businesses owned by veterans and service-disabled veterans to extend their SBA program participation time limitations by the length of time that their owners are called up in defense of our Nation. Currently, small business owners who are called up to active duty in the Guard or Reserve are effectively penalized for serving because their active duty time is counted against the time limitations on participation of the Small Business Administration's programs. Finally, my bill requires that the Department of Defense take measures to counsel Guard and Reserve members concerning the importance of notifying their employers in a timely manner after they receive Orders that they will be called up to active duty. The legislation further requires that the DoD investigate ways to diminish the lag between the time when military personnel are notified of their call-up and the time that military personnel notify their employers. Enacting this legislation is an important first step in the right direction toward assisting the brave men and women who serve in our Guard and Reserve and the businesses that employ them. However, I realize that this legislation is merely one of many steps that can and should be taken to this end and welcome new ideas to help this constituency. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and to continue to work with me, as well as veterans, policymakers, businesses, and others, to find additional solutions to address these vital issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section- by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this pressing matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bingaman today, along with Senators Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords, in introducing the Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation will provide a temporary increase in Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States and thereby avoid a significant loss funds which would otherwise occur due to a precipitous and unpredicted drop in the Federal matching rate for these States next year. Medicaid provides essential medical care to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities and functions as a critical safety net for our most vulnerable populations. Enrollment in the Medicaid program has grown by nearly one-third since the beginning of 2001, as the numbers of those in poverty and individuals without private health insurance continues to increase. In Maine, where we have an older and less wealthy population, more than 300,000 people were enrolled in Medicaid last year. One in five individuals in the State now receives health care services through MaineCare, the State's Medicaid program. States have experienced severe fiscal stress during the last few years, with sharp declines in revenues and budget shortfalls. This economic downturn, from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the States such as Maine which are already strapped with budget shortfalls. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations. The formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of Medicaid expenditures, has contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. Since Maine is a relatively poor State with a disproportionately large low-income elderly population, it has had a favorable Federal-State match in recent years, 66 percent in 2004. This translated to $1.4 billion in Federal dollars last year--two-thirds of MaineCare's $2 billion in Medicaid spending. The size of Maine's Medicaid population means that any change in the FMAP has a disproportionately significant impact on Maine's budget. This year, Maine's Federal matching rate decreased from 66.01 percent to 64.89 percent, a drop of more than one percent. The change in FMAP for FY2006 is even greater and will cause 28 States, including Maine, to lose a significant amount of Federal matching funds next year. Maine's Federal matching rate will drop nearly two points, from 64.89 percent to 62.9 percent next year, which will result in Maine losing $46.7 million in Federal matching funds. Under existing Federal law, the FMAP is determined based on the three most recent calendar years for which data is available from the Department of Commerce. This 3 year ``look back'' captures a period of time that is not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation. The FMAP for FY 2003, for example, was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FY 2003 FMAP was determined on the basis, of State per capita income over the 3 year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now. We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 but that temporary Federal fiscal relief has now ended. This Congress has reached a budget agreement which, among its terms, calls for reductions of $10 billion in Medicaid spending over the next 5 years. At this time, therefore, it is especially crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal matching funds for Medicaid, which has worked so well over the last 40 years. Our legislation is intended to be just a short term fix, for fiscal year 2006. It is my hope that we will see the creation of a Medicaid Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions. However, today, states such as Maine are facing dramatic and unpredictable fluctuations to their State FMAP formulas. This legislation would limit the percentage decrease to a half percentage point for fiscal year 2006 and help mitigate the drastic effects that a severe loss Federal funding would have on our Medicaid population next year. I therefore urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain funding for Medicaid in fiscal year 2006 to help ensure that this critical health care safety net remains intact next year for those who need it most.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bingaman today, along with Senators Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords, in introducing the Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation will provide a temporary increase in Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States and thereby avoid a significant loss funds which would otherwise occur due to a precipitous and unpredicted drop in the Federal matching rate for these States next year. Medicaid provides essential medical care to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities and functions as a critical safety net for our most vulnerable populations. Enrollment in the Medicaid program has grown by nearly one-third since the beginning of 2001, as the numbers of those in poverty and individuals without private health insurance continues to increase. In Maine, where we have an older and less wealthy population, more than 300,000 people were enrolled in Medicaid last year. One in five individuals in the State now receives health care services through MaineCare, the State's Medicaid program. States have experienced severe fiscal stress during the last few years, with sharp declines in revenues and budget shortfalls. This economic downturn, from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the States such as Maine which are already strapped with budget shortfalls. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations. The formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of Medicaid expenditures, has contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. Since Maine is a relatively poor State with a disproportionately large low-income elderly population, it has had a favorable Federal-State match in recent years, 66 percent in 2004. This translated to $1.4 billion in Federal dollars last year--two-thirds of MaineCare's $2 billion in Medicaid spending. The size of Maine's Medicaid population means that any change in the FMAP has a disproportionately significant impact on Maine's budget. This year, Maine's Federal matching rate decreased from 66.01 percent to 64.89 percent, a drop of more than one percent. The change in FMAP for FY2006 is even greater and will cause 28 States, including Maine, to lose a significant amount of Federal matching funds next year. Maine's Federal matching rate will drop nearly two points, from 64.89 percent to 62.9 percent next year, which will result in Maine losing $46.7 million in Federal matching funds. Under existing Federal law, the FMAP is determined based on the three most recent calendar years for which data is available from the Department of Commerce. This 3 year ``look back'' captures a period of time that is not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation. The FMAP for FY 2003, for example, was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FY 2003 FMAP was determined on the basis, of State per capita income over the 3 year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now. We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 but that temporary Federal fiscal relief has now ended. This Congress has reached a budget agreement which, among its terms, calls for reductions of $10 billion in Medicaid spending over the next 5 years. At this time, therefore, it is especially crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal matching funds for Medicaid, which has worked so well over the last 40 years. Our legislation is intended to be just a short term fix, for fiscal year 2006. It is my hope that we will see the creation of a Medicaid Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions. However, today, states such as Maine are facing dramatic and unpredictable fluctuations to their State FMAP formulas. This legislation would limit the percentage decrease to a half percentage point for fiscal year 2006 and help mitigate the drastic effects that a severe loss Federal funding would have on our Medicaid population next year. I therefore urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain funding for Medicaid in fiscal year 2006 to help ensure that this critical health care safety net remains intact next year for those who need it most.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1268, the Iraq and Afghanistan Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, concerning small business contracting at the Department of Energy. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am concerned that, although the conference report did not contain a substantive change to the Small Business Act's prime contracts goaling requirements, it does contain a provision addressing small business contracting. I remain deeply disappointed that H.R. 1268, an emergency appropriations measure, includes targeted language dealing with the Department of Energy's small business contracting. Numerous groups and individuals, including the SBA Administrator and the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, wrote to Congress in opposition to substantive changes to small business prime contracting goals. As a result of inclusion of this provision, the Congressional small business committees prepared a joint statement to be submitted in both the House and the Senate. Chairman Manzullo of the House Small Business already filed this Statement in the House prior to the vote on the conference report for H.R. 1268. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following statement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this is National Women's Health Week, and it is certainly fitting to take stock of both our successes in promoting women's health while looking at the challenges ahead. Historically, women's health care needs have been poorly understood. While the obvious differences between the sexes are indisputable, it was assumed that those differences had limited implications, resulting in women being systematically excluded from health research studies. Too often, only men were studied and considered the health care ``norm'' for both genders. Of course, for a few diseases such as ovarian or breast cancer, the study of women was an absolute requirement. However, for so many others, women were excluded. Sometimes we heard that it would cost more to include women in trials because more participants would need to be enrolled--since research results would need to be analyzed separately for both men and women. That certainly sounds like a recognition that men and women can differ quite substantially. As researchers have looked, they have found so many times where a single difference between the sexes has so many other ramifications for health and disease. For example, because every child is genetically unique and different from both parents, childbearing requires the ability of a woman to have periods of lowered immunity in her reproductive tract. This is also a major contributor to her susceptibility to gynecologic infections, and it helps explain why women are much more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases. This is critical knowledge when one is trying to protect women from HIV and that knowledge simply must be reflected in strategies for protecting women. Remember that men and women differ genetically--that was obvious from our earliest study of genetics . . . an entire chromosome is different. As we learn more about the human genome, and how genes interact, we doubtless will discover more differences which must be reflected in health decisions. There can be no doubt that whenever we fail to see women properly represented in health research, we risk causing major harm. One recent example is so notable. When one federally funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, physicians were left to assume that the protective effect may apply to women as well. So for years physicians have been left to assume that aspirin had the same effect in women but we simply didn't know. Yet we do know that the pattern of heart disease in women is different than in men. Heart disease develops a bit later about 10 years later. Despite this, heart disease kills more women than men, more than either breast or ovarian cancer! So in March of this year when we finally learned that aspirin does not have the same effect in women as in men, we saw more evidence that assuming there is no difference between men and women is no substitute for conducting proper research. Sex differences in health are so numerous. Osteoporosis is far more common in women--as is depression. While women have the ability to modulate our immunity to bear a child, it is ironic that we suffer far more autoimmune disease than men. For example, 9 of 10 lupus sufferers are women! Drugs and alcohol affect us differently from men as well even a woman's response to anesthesia is different than a man's. So one can see it is a critical problem when we fail to discover such differences. It compromises the quality of health care for more than half of all Americans! Many of us have worked for years to achieve equal representation of women in health research. Since 1990 when the Society for Women's Health Research was founded, we have had a voice to help us in our effort to promote the inclusion of women in health care research, and to educate all of us about sex differences in health and disease. The Society is to be commended for its tireless efforts to increase our understanding of sex differences. Today we know that equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Progress has been made--we have seen an Office of Women's Health established at the NIH, and the research at the Institutes has reflected that representation. In fact, we see that not only women but also children and minorities are being better represented in health research today. I introduced the Women's Health Office Act to help address the sex- based disparities in research and policy. This legislation provides permanent authorization for offices of women's health in five Federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Health Resources and Services Administration; and the Food and Drug Administration. Currently, only two women's health offices in the Federal Government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. With some offices established, but not authorized, the needs of women could be compromised without the consent of Congress. We must create statutory authority for these offices, to ensure that health policy flows from fact, not assumption. Improving the health of American women requires a far greater understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment and the delivery of services and passage of this legislation will help ensure that. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will ensure better health for our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, here and abroad. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of currency policies and to offer a bill, the Fair Currency Practices Act of 2005, that will address key concerns regarding the Treasury Department's statutory review and reporting requirements on currency manipulation. In particular, this bill strengthens Treasury's hand in addressing currency manipulation, including the current practices of countries such as China. Through the practice of pegging its currency to the dollar, China artificially maintains the yuan, at 8.28 per dollar. While economists differ over the extent that China's currency is undervalued, it is often estimated to be undervalued by as much as fifteen to forty percent, rendering Chinese manufactured goods cheaper in the U.S.--and U.S. manufactured goods more expensive in China. China's deliberate and unfair currency practices have contributed to our Nation's trade deficit with China, reaching a record $162 billion last year. The yuan's undervaluation has had a profound impact on our Nation's manufacturing sector--particularly on U.S. manufacturing employment. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Co-Chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, and a Senator from a State with a rich history in manufacturing, I am keenly aware of this issue's importance. Indeed, our manufacturers--who are integral to our economic security and national defense-- unjustifiably struggle to compete with countries that disregard their international obligations. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report today, which focuses on China's exchange rate problem. In the report, the Commission notes that foreign exchange markets are sending clear signals that China should revalue its yuan, and that in recent years all major currencies have adjusted upward with the exception of China's. The Commission explains that an appreciation of foreign currencies is needed to help correct the U.S. current account deficit. In the report, the Commission discusses the value of improving the process by which the Treasury Department assesses and reports upon the issue of foreign countries' currency manipulation. The legislation that I offer today, which is cosponsored by Senator Dole, makes substantial improvements to that process. Chair Manzullo, my counterpart in the House of Representatives is offering this bill today in the House. I thank him for his leadership on issues affecting our Nation's small businesses, and particularly for his efforts on behalf of our Nation's manufacturers. Specifically, the legislation amends the Exchange Rates and Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988, to clarify that a country is manipulating its currency if it is engaged in ``protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange market.'' The legislation also amends the 1988 Act to eliminate the necessity that a country have both a material global current account surplus and a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, before the Secretary of the Treasury is required to enter into negotiations with the offending country to end its unfair practices. The change requires such negotiations if there is either a material global current account surplus or a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States. Currently, the Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund, and others rely largely upon suspect Chinese data in determining China's trade balance with other countries. The legislation's final provision instructs the Treasury Department to undertake an exercise examining China's trade surplus. The investigation would include an analysis of why China's reported trade surplus with the U.S. and other countries differs from that reported by China's trading partners. The legislation requires that the Treasury Department submit a report of its investigation to Congress. Representative Manzullo and I will continue to collaborate on addressing unfair currency practices by offending countries. We Are both well aware of the negative effects these practices have on our Nation's small businesses. One of our combined efforts commissioned a General Accounting Office study which examined issues related to foreign government manipulation of world currency markets. That study is expected to be released soon. As in the past, I will continue to strive to draw greater attention to the effects of China's currency practices and to find solutions that enable our domestic industries to compete on a level and fair playing field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section- by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of currency policies and to offer a bill, the Fair Currency Practices Act of 2005, that will address key concerns regarding the Treasury Department's statutory review and reporting requirements on currency manipulation. In particular, this bill strengthens Treasury's hand in addressing currency manipulation, including the current practices of countries such as China. Through the practice of pegging its currency to the dollar, China artificially maintains the yuan, at 8.28 per dollar. While economists differ over the extent that China's currency is undervalued, it is often estimated to be undervalued by as much as fifteen to forty percent, rendering Chinese manufactured goods cheaper in the U.S.--and U.S. manufactured goods more expensive in China. China's deliberate and unfair currency practices have contributed to our Nation's trade deficit with China, reaching a record $162 billion last year. The yuan's undervaluation has had a profound impact on our Nation's manufacturing sector--particularly on U.S. manufacturing employment. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Co-Chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, and a Senator from a State with a rich history in manufacturing, I am keenly aware of this issue's importance. Indeed, our manufacturers--who are integral to our economic security and national defense-- unjustifiably struggle to compete with countries that disregard their international obligations. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report today, which focuses on China's exchange rate problem. In the report, the Commission notes that foreign exchange markets are sending clear signals that China should revalue its yuan, and that in recent years all major currencies have adjusted upward with the exception of China's. The Commission explains that an appreciation of foreign currencies is needed to help correct the U.S. current account deficit. In the report, the Commission discusses the value of improving the process by which the Treasury Department assesses and reports upon the issue of foreign countries' currency manipulation. The legislation that I offer today, which is cosponsored by Senator Dole, makes substantial improvements to that process. Chair Manzullo, my counterpart in the House of Representatives is offering this bill today in the House. I thank him for his leadership on issues affecting our Nation's small businesses, and particularly for his efforts on behalf of our Nation's manufacturers. Specifically, the legislation amends the Exchange Rates and Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988, to clarify that a country is manipulating its currency if it is engaged in ``protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange market.'' The legislation also amends the 1988 Act to eliminate the necessity that a country have both a material global current account surplus and a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, before the Secretary of the Treasury is required to enter into negotiations with the offending country to end its unfair practices. The change requires such negotiations if there is either a material global current account surplus or a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States. Currently, the Treasury Department, the International Monetary Fund, and others rely largely upon suspect Chinese data in determining China's trade balance with other countries. The legislation's final provision instructs the Treasury Department to undertake an exercise examining China's trade surplus. The investigation would include an analysis of why China's reported trade surplus with the U.S. and other countries differs from that reported by China's trading partners. The legislation requires that the Treasury Department submit a report of its investigation to Congress. Representative Manzullo and I will continue to collaborate on addressing unfair currency practices by offending countries. We Are both well aware of the negative effects these practices have on our Nation's small businesses. One of our combined efforts commissioned a General Accounting Office study which examined issues related to foreign government manipulation of world currency markets. That study is expected to be released soon. As in the past, I will continue to strive to draw greater attention to the effects of China's currency practices and to find solutions that enable our domestic industries to compete on a level and fair playing field. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and that a section- by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Landrieu in introducing this legislation to assure women of a higher standard of breast cancer treatment. We are joined today by colleagues who have supported our efforts in the past--Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Murray, Senator Corzine, and Senator Durbin. Today in the House, Representatives Kelly and DeLauro are introducing identical legislation. Working together in this bipartisan, bicameral effort--supported by so many breast cancer advocates--we should at last achieve for American women the protections they so deserve. A woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime. This year over 216,000 women will receive a life-altering diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. At some point in their lives, nearly every American will have a family member or friend who must battle breast cancer. Yet current standards of health care coverage have created a situation in which thousands of women each year undergo mastectomies needlessly, and women have even undergone breast cancer surgery as an outpatient--the ``drive through mastectomy'' as it has been called--being sent home without critical support for their recovery. Our legislation empowers women and their doctors to make treatment decisions based on what is medically prudent, not simply what will achieve short-term savings. The stress of a cancer diagnosis is debilitating. To compound that stress, to leave a woman with the knowledge that she must undergo a disfiguring procedure due only to her financial position, or to undergo surgery without proper hospitalization, is absolutely unconscionable. This bill achieves three important objectives. First, it assures a patient of a second opinion for any cancer diagnosis. A cancer diagnosis simply must be reliable. Second, this legislation assures a patient of a reasonable minimum length of hospital stay for invasive treatment of breast cancer. Many of us have heard of women receiving outpatient mastectomies, being sent home without the necessary support. Such treatment is unconscionable. This legislation establishes a 48 hour minimum stay assurance for mastectomy and lumpectomy. I must point out that this assurance does not require a woman remain hospitalized that long if she and her doctor concur that she goes home earlier--nor does it prevent a longer hospitalization if her medical condition warrants it. However, this provision will protect women from that small fraction of insurance plans which will not allow such reasonable treatment. This assurance is offered regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State regulations. Finally, this legislation does more than simply ensure a patient of reasonable hospitalization. It assures her of support in making the best choices about her treatment. It is not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' are some of the most frightening in the English language. For the woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step? For many women, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or lumpectomy. But despite the fact that studies are demonstrating that lumpectomy often is just as effective as mastectomy for treating breast cancer, an insurance coverage bias causes too many to unnecessarily undergo mastectomy. By ensuring a reasonable hospital stay, as well as coverage for radiation therapy, this legislation removes much of the financial incentive that has caused women to receive a mastectomy when a lumpectomy would have been just as effective. In fact, when the pain, trauma, and cost of breast reconstruction is considered, together with the frequent need for follow-up surgeries, and when we consider the additional health risks which implants may pose, it is clear that mastectomy can entail greater health and economic costs. Decisions about treatment simply must be based on sound science and a long term view, not what is most financially expedient at that very moment. A woman must have the ability to make a choice with their physician which considers what is in her best long term interest. This legislation ensures that choice is not influenced by a short term outlook. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work towards passing it this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Landrieu in introducing this legislation to assure women of a higher standard of breast cancer treatment. We are joined today by colleagues who have supported our efforts in the past--Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Murray, Senator Corzine, and Senator Durbin. Today in the House, Representatives Kelly and DeLauro are introducing identical legislation. Working together in this bipartisan, bicameral effort--supported by so many breast cancer advocates--we should at last achieve for American women the protections they so deserve. A woman in the United States has a 1 in 7 chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime. This year over 216,000 women will receive a life-altering diagnosis of invasive breast cancer. At some point in their lives, nearly every American will have a family member or friend who must battle breast cancer. Yet current standards of health care coverage have created a situation in which thousands of women each year undergo mastectomies needlessly, and women have even undergone breast cancer surgery as an outpatient--the ``drive through mastectomy'' as it has been called--being sent home without critical support for their recovery. Our legislation empowers women and their doctors to make treatment decisions based on what is medically prudent, not simply what will achieve short-term savings. The stress of a cancer diagnosis is debilitating. To compound that stress, to leave a woman with the knowledge that she must undergo a disfiguring procedure due only to her financial position, or to undergo surgery without proper hospitalization, is absolutely unconscionable. This bill achieves three important objectives. First, it assures a patient of a second opinion for any cancer diagnosis. A cancer diagnosis simply must be reliable. Second, this legislation assures a patient of a reasonable minimum length of hospital stay for invasive treatment of breast cancer. Many of us have heard of women receiving outpatient mastectomies, being sent home without the necessary support. Such treatment is unconscionable. This legislation establishes a 48 hour minimum stay assurance for mastectomy and lumpectomy. I must point out that this assurance does not require a woman remain hospitalized that long if she and her doctor concur that she goes home earlier--nor does it prevent a longer hospitalization if her medical condition warrants it. However, this provision will protect women from that small fraction of insurance plans which will not allow such reasonable treatment. This assurance is offered regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State regulations. Finally, this legislation does more than simply ensure a patient of reasonable hospitalization. It assures her of support in making the best choices about her treatment. It is not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' are some of the most frightening in the English language. For the woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step? For many women, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or lumpectomy. But despite the fact that studies are demonstrating that lumpectomy often is just as effective as mastectomy for treating breast cancer, an insurance coverage bias causes too many to unnecessarily undergo mastectomy. By ensuring a reasonable hospital stay, as well as coverage for radiation therapy, this legislation removes much of the financial incentive that has caused women to receive a mastectomy when a lumpectomy would have been just as effective. In fact, when the pain, trauma, and cost of breast reconstruction is considered, together with the frequent need for follow-up surgeries, and when we consider the additional health risks which implants may pose, it is clear that mastectomy can entail greater health and economic costs. Decisions about treatment simply must be based on sound science and a long term view, not what is most financially expedient at that very moment. A woman must have the ability to make a choice with their physician which considers what is in her best long term interest. This legislation ensures that choice is not influenced by a short term outlook. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work towards passing it this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a Senate resolution that honors our Nation's 25 million small businesses and the tremendous contributions they make to our economy, as we celebrate the Small Business Administration's--SBA--National Small Business Week which runs April 24 through April 30, 2005. Small businesses form a solid economic foundation for growth and job creation. The success of our Nation's small businesses have helped create nearly three-quarters of all new jobs and produce 50 percent of our country's gross domestic product. Since becoming Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have made it one of my top priorities to be a megaphone for small businesses and help raise the needs and concerns of our countries' job creators in the Senate. Each year, there are 3 to 4 million new business startups--and one in 25 adult Americans take the steps to start a business. With one quarter of existing small business owners intending to form another business, this is clearly a sector that deserves our accolades and recognition. And of course, one of our most valuable assets for ensuring the success of small businesses is the Small Business Administration. This agency is pivotal in overseeing the delivery of financial and business development tools for millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses across the United States. And since 1999, the SBA's programs have helped created and retain over 4.5 million jobs. Particularly, the SBA's financing programs have been a crucial source to accessing capital for small businesses, and have never been more in demand with both the 7(a) program and 504 program delivering measurable results. The numbers from fiscal year 2004 represent these programs indisputable success, with the 7(a) program providing over $13.5 billion in loans to help small businesses create 132,603 new jobs. The 504 program lent $4 billion to support the creation of 86,847 jobs. Furthermore, the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs assisted almost 1.5 million startup and existing small businesses. In fact, the Small Business Development Center--SBDC--program served over 725,000 clients and helped create or retain over 168,000 jobs in fiscal year 2003, while the SBA's Women's Business Center's training and counseling helped to create or retain over 6,500 jobs in fiscal year 2003. We have also provided small businesses with tax relief to help grow their business. For example, I championed an increase in the amount a small business can deduct when they invest in equipment and other business assets capital that fuels expansion and job creation. So as we celebrate our Nation's small businesses, we must be mindful of Congress's responsibility to ensure that each business has the opportunity to flourish. With the BA's budget drastically declining by 36 percent over the last 5 years, I will not hesitate to take action and ensure that this vital sector continues to have the valuable resources they deserve. The SBA has been a critical partner to millions of small enterprises as well as aspiring entrepreneurs as they embark on the path to prosperity and job creation. The least we can do is strengthen, not erode, the SBA's core loan and technical assistance programs that have proven time and again to be the keystone in aiding the efforts and dreams of America's entrepreneurs. Today we celebrate our Nation's entrepreneurs and honor America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to show their support for the small businesses in their States and support this resolution. We must remember that the investment and support that we provide to our small business today is integral to our Nation's economic and job security tomorrow.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Feinstein as the lead cosponsor for the Feinstein-Snowe legislation that will rectify an unacceptable inequity when it comes to obtaining greater fuel economy for the vehicles we choose to drive. This bill allows us to take a 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. What is clear, on the eve of Earth Day, is that the Federal Government must lead in ensuring consumers a choice of vehicles with higher fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety, and a minimal impact on our environment. Closing what is called the SUV loophole that allows popular SUVs and other light trucks to get only 20.7 miles per gallon while other passenger cars need to meet a 27.5 mile per gallon threshold, will help us meet these environmental, economic, and national security goals, and I think it's an idea whose time has long since arrived. My colleague from California has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I'm proud to work with her again in introducing our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. Now I know when we first introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. And around here, that's usually a sign you're onto something. But can anyone honestly say we're better off today without nothing? That we're in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible four years ago? This legislation is a critical first step to provide real relief from skyrocketing gas prices that have reached over $2 a gallon all across the county are estimated to stay high throughout the year. The increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards for the light trucks category--mostly SUVs and minivans--will ultimately decrease our need for foreign oil. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention that every hour, $28 million leaves our country to pay for the Nation's unquenched thirst for foreign oil. When it comes to the fuel economy of America's sport utility vehicles, surely we can do better for our pocketbooks, for our planet, and for our promise for the future. It is unacceptable to me that a developing country like China has put in place new regulations that are more stringent than U.S. CAFE standards to promote better fuel. economy in their vehicles and rein in that country's energy consumption. Like the U.S., China greatly depends upon foreign oil. However, China's GDP per capita was only approximately $860 in 2004 while the U.S. was at $35,000 per person. The standards that go into force in China in July of 2005, require that all new passenger cars get two miles per gallon more than U.S. CAFE standards. And SUVs will have to achieve 1.7 to 2.7 miles per gallon more depending on the make. By 2008, large cars in China will have to get 30.4 miles per gallon. China, very aware of their rising oil imports, skyrocketing oil prices, and their air pollution, are finding a way to achieve greater fuel economy, but the U.S. cannot? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Right now, all our vehicles combined consume over 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up over 20 percent of U.S. carbon monoxide emissions--the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon monoxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon monoxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than passenger cars? Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We've seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and Global Positioning System devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the where-with-all to make SUVs that get better fuel economy? Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40 percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period--and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was 3\1/2\ years ago. I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'' and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. As the 2001 NAS Report also stated, ``Because of the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.'' How can we do anything less? So many questions that we already have the answers to but not the initiative or will to do so. Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve so many goals, and it's an idea whose time has long since arrived. I ask for my colleagues' support for closing the SUV loophole, and I thank the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed colleague, Senator Feinstein as the lead cosponsor for the Feinstein-Snowe legislation that will rectify an unacceptable inequity when it comes to obtaining greater fuel economy for the vehicles we choose to drive. This bill allows us to take a 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. What is clear, on the eve of Earth Day, is that the Federal Government must lead in ensuring consumers a choice of vehicles with higher fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety, and a minimal impact on our environment. Closing what is called the SUV loophole that allows popular SUVs and other light trucks to get only 20.7 miles per gallon while other passenger cars need to meet a 27.5 mile per gallon threshold, will help us meet these environmental, economic, and national security goals, and I think it's an idea whose time has long since arrived. My colleague from California has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I'm proud to work with her again in introducing our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. Now I know when we first introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. And around here, that's usually a sign you're onto something. But can anyone honestly say we're better off today without nothing? That we're in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible four years ago? This legislation is a critical first step to provide real relief from skyrocketing gas prices that have reached over $2 a gallon all across the county are estimated to stay high throughout the year. The increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards for the light trucks category--mostly SUVs and minivans--will ultimately decrease our need for foreign oil. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention that every hour, $28 million leaves our country to pay for the Nation's unquenched thirst for foreign oil. When it comes to the fuel economy of America's sport utility vehicles, surely we can do better for our pocketbooks, for our planet, and for our promise for the future. It is unacceptable to me that a developing country like China has put in place new regulations that are more stringent than U.S. CAFE standards to promote better fuel. economy in their vehicles and rein in that country's energy consumption. Like the U.S., China greatly depends upon foreign oil. However, China's GDP per capita was only approximately $860 in 2004 while the U.S. was at $35,000 per person. The standards that go into force in China in July of 2005, require that all new passenger cars get two miles per gallon more than U.S. CAFE standards. And SUVs will have to achieve 1.7 to 2.7 miles per gallon more depending on the make. By 2008, large cars in China will have to get 30.4 miles per gallon. China, very aware of their rising oil imports, skyrocketing oil prices, and their air pollution, are finding a way to achieve greater fuel economy, but the U.S. cannot? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Right now, all our vehicles combined consume over 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up over 20 percent of U.S. carbon monoxide emissions--the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon monoxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon monoxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than passenger cars? Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We've seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and Global Positioning System devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the where-with-all to make SUVs that get better fuel economy? Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40 percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period--and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was 3\1/2\ years ago. I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'' and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. As the 2001 NAS Report also stated, ``Because of the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.'' How can we do anything less? So many questions that we already have the answers to but not the initiative or will to do so. Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve so many goals, and it's an idea whose time has long since arrived. I ask for my colleagues' support for closing the SUV loophole, and I thank the Chair.