Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of John Negroponte to be confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence. These are historic and perilous times as we continue to face enemies intent upon attacking us and the values and freedoms upon which our Nation was founded. Because we still know very little about our Nation's most dangerous adversaries, the new Director of National Intelligence will be responsible for ensuring that this Nation's intelligence community has the collection and analytic expertise required to confront our greatest challenges no matter from which quarter they appear. While many are concerned about the emergence of China as a peer competitor in the Northern Pacific, we obviously still face the scourge of international terrorism, international criminal organizations and other transnational threats. And, of course, there remains the perplexing problem of gathering intelligence against closed societies such as Iran and North Korea so called ``hard'' targets. Ambassador Negroponte has both the distinct privilege and solemn obligations that come with being the first Director of National Intelligence. How he leads, how he manages the community, how he shapes his role, the relationships he creates with the various agencies and their leaders will not only determine how effective he is in reforming our intelligence community but very likely how each of his successors will approach the oversight of our intelligence community as well. And the transformation he is charged with overseeing carries with it the future security of this Nation. Our intelligence community professionals are the best in the world and every day they toil tirelessly, often unrecognized, in the shadows to keep this country safe. I believe they are eagerly looking for strong leadership so they can move forward with the business of securing the country. It has been said that ``A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be.'' I believe that John Negroponte possesses the experience and leadership necessary to take this Nation's 15 intelligence agencies and the thousands of dedicated professionals in those agencies who toil to protect us all to where they ought to be. He has demonstrated a recognition of the need to refocus our intelligence community, so that disparate intelligence agencies are working together more cooperatively, so that information access is improved to enable all relevant agencies to provide necessary input, and so that the intelligence products provided to national policy makers are not only timely but reflect the best judgment of the entirety of the intelligence community. Ambassador Negroponte has taken on some of the toughest and most important jobs in our diplomatic service in his long and illustrious career as a Foreign Service Officer. He has been nominated for and confirmed as Chief of Mission in four embassies and as the President's representative to the United Nations. He has served in leadership positions within the Department of State and as a security advisor in the White House. John Negroponte has demonstrated the resolve and ability to take on tough management and policy positions and to perform admirably. In the past 3 years, there have been four major investigations that have concluded that the time has come for significant reform in the intelligence community. In December 2002, the primary recommendation of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 was that Congress should amend the National Security Act of 1947 to create a statutory Director of National Intelligence to be the President's principal advisor on intelligence with the full range of management, budgetary, and personnel responsibilities needed to make the entire U.S. Intelligence Community operate as a coherent whole. Last July, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq that found that although the Director of Central Intelligence was supposed to act as head of both the CIA and the intelligence community, for the most part he acted only as the head of the CIA to the detriment of the intelligence product provided to National policymakers. Later that month, the 9/11 Commission issued their report on the terrorist attacks and also recommended that the current position of Director of Central Intelligence should be replaced by a National Intelligence Director with two main areas of responsibility: to oversee National intelligence centers and to manage the National intelligence program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it. Finally, earlier this month the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction found the Intelligence Community is ``fragmented, loosely managed, and poorly coordinated; the 15 intelligence organizations are a `community' in name only and rarely act with a unity of purpose.'' They also concluded that the Director of National Intelligence will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated, more efficient, and more effective. Clearly, with this many investigations and Commissions arriving at the same conclusions time and again, for the sake and safety of the Nation we must begin the transformation of the fifteen agencies tasked with collecting and analyzing intelligence into a single, coordinated community with the agility to predict, respond to and overcome the threats our Nation will face. The confirmation of the first Director of National Intelligence is the first step in executing this extremely complex undertaking and time is of the essence. Indeed, I cannot recall a time when a nominee has come before the Senate with the entire community they have been nominated to lead in the midst of such sweeping transformation. And once again, I believe the President has made an excellent choice in John Negroponte to lead the intelligence community through such a transformation. I look forward to working with him in the coming years as we shape our intelligence community into a cohesive whole and as he defines the role of Director of National Intelligence. With a strong DNI and a focused intelligence team, our Nation will be safer. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation of John Negroponte the first Director of National Intelligence.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, regulatory fairness remains one of my top priorities. In 1996, I was pleased to support, along with all of my colleagues, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, which made the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA compels agencies to produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy the requirements of agency regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have failed to achieve this requirement. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulations. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. The GAO also found that SBREFA's language is unclear in some places about what is actually required. That is why today, I am introducing The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005, to close those loopholes, and to make it clear that we were serious when we first told agencies, and that we want them to produce quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses understand how to deal with regulations. My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce will be suggestions about how to satisfy a regulation's requirements, and will not impose further requirements or additional enforcement measures. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut agencies' ability to enforce their regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then agencies will never achieve the goals at which their regulations are directed. The key to helping small businesses comply with these regulations is to provide assistance--showing them what is necessary and how they will be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the resources to answer these questions. This is a disadvantage when compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. The SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that regulatory compliance costs small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 employees. If an agency can not describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This is the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was originally included in SBREFA. That reason is as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, my bill would do the following: Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 of SBREFA currently requires that agencies ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using on line searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently states agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides available through their websites in an easily accessible way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not indicate when the compliance guides should be published. Therefore, even if an agency is required to produce a compliance guide, it can claim that it has not violated the publishing requirement because there is no clear deadline. Agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides simultaneously with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, compliance requirements must identify what small businesses must do to satisfy the requirements and how they will know that they have met these requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the requirements. For example, if, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing might be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. It is time we get serious about ensuring that small businesses have the assistance they need to deal with the maze of Federal regulations we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005 will make a significant contribution to that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, regulatory fairness remains one of my top priorities. In 1996, I was pleased to support, along with all of my colleagues, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, which made the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA compels agencies to produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses satisfy the requirements of agency regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have failed to achieve this requirement. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulations. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. The GAO also found that SBREFA's language is unclear in some places about what is actually required. That is why today, I am introducing The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005, to close those loopholes, and to make it clear that we were serious when we first told agencies, and that we want them to produce quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses understand how to deal with regulations. My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce will be suggestions about how to satisfy a regulation's requirements, and will not impose further requirements or additional enforcement measures. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut agencies' ability to enforce their regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then agencies will never achieve the goals at which their regulations are directed. The key to helping small businesses comply with these regulations is to provide assistance--showing them what is necessary and how they will be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or possess the resources to answer these questions. This is a disadvantage when compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. The SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that regulatory compliance costs small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 employees. If an agency can not describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This is the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was originally included in SBREFA. That reason is as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, my bill would do the following: Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 of SBREFA currently requires that agencies ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using on line searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently states agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides available through their websites in an easily accessible way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not indicate when the compliance guides should be published. Therefore, even if an agency is required to produce a compliance guide, it can claim that it has not violated the publishing requirement because there is no clear deadline. Agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides simultaneously with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, compliance requirements must identify what small businesses must do to satisfy the requirements and how they will know that they have met these requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the requirements. For example, if, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing might be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. It is time we get serious about ensuring that small businesses have the assistance they need to deal with the maze of Federal regulations we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2005 will make a significant contribution to that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today we are facing a public health crisis which most of us certainly did not anticipate. Nearly a half century ago, following the development of modern antibiotics, Nobel Laureate Sir McFarland Burnet stated, ``One can think of the middle of the twentieth century as the end of one of the most important social revolutions in history, the virtual elimination of infectious diseases as a significant factor in social life.'' How things have changed. Today some of our most deadly health threats come from infectious diseases. When we consider the greatest killers-- HIV, tuberculosis, malaria--it is clear that infectious diseases have not abated. At the same time we have seen an alarming trend-- increasingly physicians are stymied as existing antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating infections. We know that resistance to drugs can be developed, and that the more we expose bacteria to antibiotics, the more resistance we will see. So it is crucial that we preserve antibiotics for use in treating disease. Most Americans appreciate this fact, and now understand that colds and flu are caused by viruses. So we know that treating a cold with an antibiotic is inappropriate, and we understand that such use of antibiotics is unwise. Over 9 out of 10 Americans now know that resistance to antibiotics is growing. Our health care providers are getting the message too. Physicians know that when a patient who has been inappropriately prescribed an antibiotic actually develops a bacterial infection, it is more likely to be resistant to treatment. When we overuse antibiotics, we risk eliminating the very cures which scientists fought so hard to develop. The threat of bioterrorism amplifies the danger. I have supported increased NIH research funding, as well as Bioshield legislation, in order to promote development of essential drugs. Yet as we work hard to develop lifesaving medications, their misuse will render them ineffective. Every day in America antibiotics continue to be used in huge quantities for no treatment purpose whatsoever. I am speaking of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agriculture. Simply put, the practice of feeding antibiotics to healthy animals jeopardizes the effectiveness of these medicines in treating ill people and animals. Recognizing the public health threat caused by antibiotic resistance, Congress in 2000 amended the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act to curb antibiotic overuse in human medicine. Yet today it is estimated that 70 percent of the antimicrobials used in the United States are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes including growth promotion, poor management practices and crowded, unsanitary conditions. In March 2003, the National Academies of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will not solve the problem of drug resistance. Substantial efforts must be made to decrease inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in animals and agriculture. Last week five major medical and environmental groups--the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, Environmental Defense, the Food Animal Concerns Trust and the Union of Concerned Scientists--jointly filed a formal regulatory petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to withdraw approvals for seven classes of antibiotics which are used as agricultural feed additives. They pointed out what we have known for years--that antibiotics which are crucial to treating human disease should never be used except for their intended purpose--to treat disease. In a study just reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 17 percent of drug-resistant staph infections had no apparent links to health-care settings. Nearly one in five of these resistant infections arose in the community--not in the health care setting. While must do more to address inappropriate antibiotic use in medicine, and use in our environment cannot be ignored. This is why I have joined with Senator Kennedy to again introduce the ``Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act''. This bill phases out the non-therapeutic uses of critical medically important antibiotics in livestock and poultry production, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to public health. I am pleased that we have been joined in this effort by Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Reed in introducing this measure. Our legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw the approval for nontherapeutic agricultural use of antibiotics in food-producing animals if the antibiotic is used for treating human disease, unless the application is proven harmless within two years. The same tough standard of safety will apply to new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. This legislation places no unreasonable burden on producers. It does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick animals, or for that matter to treat pets and other animals not used for food. The act authorizes Federal payments to small family farms to defray their costs, and it also establishes research and demonstration programs that reduce the use of antibiotics in raising food-producing animals. The act also requires data collection from manufacturers so that the types and amounts of antibiotics used in animals can be monitored. As we are constantly reminded, the discovery and development of a new drug can require great time and expense. It is simply common sense that we preserve the use of the drugs which we already have, and use them appropriately. I call on my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 730, the Omnibus Emissions Reduction Act of 2005, that has been introduced by Senator Leahy of Vermont and myself. Our legislation is the only comprehensive legislation that aims to control mercury emissions for all major sources of mercury pollution and stop releases of this toxic pollutant into the environment. Mercury is a liquid metal that damages the nervous system through ingestion or inhalation, and is a particularly damaging toxic pollutant in the case of pregnant women and children. This is an alarming problem and I am pleased to note that our bill offers much greater protections for the public's health than the recently released Environmental Protection Agency's mercury emissions rule that simply will not get the job done. Our bill addresses the problem of how mercury pollution gets into our environment. Mercury, which is contained in coal and emitted up through smokestacks into the atmosphere as the coal is burned, is then transported through the air and carried downwind for hundreds and hundreds of miles where, unfortunately for Maine and every State along the way, it falls to Earth in snow and rain. The mercury ends up in our lakes, rivers, and streams where it is then ingested by fish, and in turn by humans when they eat the fish from these freshwater sources. The legislation directs the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate mercury emissions standards for unregulated sources on a much more aggressive timetable to reduce mercury emissions as soon as possible. Our bill stops pollution at its source by requiring a ninety percent reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired powered plants by 2010, rather than by 22 percent by 2010 as the administration's recent rule calls for. The Leahy-Snowe bill also addresses mercury releases from other sources as well, all the way from commercial and industrial boilers and chlor-alkali plants, to requiring labeling products containing mercury as simple as a mercury thermometer. Mercury, as we have historically thought of it, brings to mind the ancient Roman messenger of the gods, or the symbol that made us all proud, that of a small Mercury capsule carrying a lone astronaut into space. Mercury, as we are now coming to know it, is one of the most toxic substances in our environment, causing great neurologic damage if ingested by humans. There is growing concern around the country about mercury contamination, especially in the freshwater lakes in the northeast, and the risk it posses to those most vulnerable: young children, infants, and the unborn. Mercury emissions are affecting our wildlife as well. In Maine, the beautiful common loon with its haunting call has been known as a symbol of conservation--and even appears on license plates, the cost of which funds conservation efforts. The haunting call is now coming from biologists whose studies show that, besides the threats to humans, the loons and other birds, such as the bald eagle, may now be having trouble reproducing or fighting diseases because of mercury ingestion. The Leahy-Snowe Act also aims to reduce transboundary atmospheric and surface mercury pollution by directing the EPA to work with Canada and Mexico to inventory the sources and pathways of mercury air and water pollution within North America. The bill dovetails nicely with the actions the State of Maine has taken and also the goals of the Mercury Action Plan of the Conference of Northeast Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. This bill will go a long way towards developing a much needed solution to the problem of mercury emissions in the environment, and I look forward to the day when the fish advisories are lifted on all of our lakes in Maine so that its citizens can enjoy fuller use of their environment, and also reap greater economic benefits from its natural resources. This goal will not be easy to reach as our environment is already impacted with past and current mercury pollution. However, the Maine Legislature has already taken a significant step toward this goal by establishing a state program to help Maine cities and towns keep mercury products out of the trash. Trash disposal, especially incineration, is one of the primary ways we introduce mercury to the Northeast's environment. Under Maine law, some mercury products such as thermometers and thermostats had to be labeled beginning in 2002. Also by 2002, businesses were required to recycle the mercury in these products. Starting this year, a similar requirement applies to homeowners. Maine has taken an excellent step forward to decrease regional mercury pollution, but realistically no one State or region can solve its mercury pollution problems. What is needed is a nationwide information system and controls for mercury releases starting with the largest polluters. We know that polluted air does not stop at State borders or even international boundaries. And, on the horizon is the fact that the burning coal continues to rapidly increase in developing nations around the globe. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work in highlighting the problem of mercury emissions through the introduction of this legislation. This introduction will bring the problem before Congress and the public, to spark debate, and to begin a dialogue, especially with those industries that will be affected by any curbs in emissions and from those people most directly affected by the mercury emissions. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and my Senate colleagues to come up with a fair solution and one that will truly protect the public's health from this pervasive toxic mercury pollution problem.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2005'' to increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, as well as my good friend Senator Bingaman from New Mexico have agreed to co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation. Regrettably, our Nation's healthcare system is in the midst of a crisis. Each year, more and more Americans are unable to purchase health insurance, and there are no signs that things are improving. As evidence, the United States Census Bureau estimates that nearly 47 million people did not have health insurance coverage for all of 2002. Sadly, this number rose from 41.2 million uninsured persons in 2001--a 14.6 percent increase. As if these numbers on a national scale are not alarming enough, the results are even more troubling when we look specifically at the small business sector of our economy. Analysis conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan group dedicated to ensuring that all workers have access to affordable health care, suggests that the highest rates of uninsured occur among either self-employed workers or workers whose employer employees fewer than 25 persons. When compared to workers in firms that employ 1,000 or more employees, where just 12.6 percent of those workers do not have health insurance, it becomes clear that the majority of uninsured Americans work for small enterprises. Clearly, these numbers suggest that there is a direct correlation among those persons who do not have health insurance and the size of their employer. The question, then, is why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our national economy, so disadvantaged when it comes to purchasing health insurance. The main reason that small business owners are not able to offer their employees health insurance is because many small business owners are able to pay only a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums or, even worse, cannot afford to provide any health insurance or other employee benefits at all. As a result, many small business workers must acquire health insurance from the private sector rather than the work place--an unfair, and far more expensive alternative. Clearly, we have a problem on our hands. While we can debate among ourselves why this crisis exists and how we ended up here, what is not open for debate is that we need to start identifying ways to fix the system because it is simply unconscionable to do nothing while more and more Americans find themselves without health care. As you know, I re-introduced a bill earlier this year that will go a long ways towards improving the situation by creating Associated Health Plans for small businesses. In general, this bill would permit small businesses throughout the country to band together for purposes of obtaining an insurance quote from an insurance company. By pooling these businesses together, they would pay lower premiums because of the increased risk pool. Again, this bill would increase the number of Americans that would be able to afford health insurance because their insurance premiums would be based on a more reasonable number. The bill I am introducing today builds upon this and goes a step further by putting more small business owners and their employees on a level playing field when compared to workers of a larger company. Specifically, many large companies and even the Federal government enable their employees to purchase health insurance and other qualified benefits with taxfree dollars. Larger companies are able to do this by qualifying for certain employee benefit delivery mechanisms under the tax code. One such delivery mechanism is a cafeteria plan. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs whereby employers offer their employees the opportunity to purchase certain qualified benefits of their choosing. The key here is that the employer provides the opportunity for the employee to purchase the benefit, and the employee is then free to chose whether to participate and which benefits to buy. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, and life and disability insurance. Typically, employer contributions, employee contributions, or a combination of the two fund these plans. Cafeteria plans offer valuable benefits to employees and are popular for many reasons. Specifically, they offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while enabling them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Participating employees are also able to exclude any wages that they contribute to a cafeteria plan from their Federal taxable income, Social Security, and Medicare, which means they are using more valuable pre-tax dollars to buy these benefits. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing these benefits at a lower cost because employers are oftentimes able to obtain a reduced price for the benefits through a group rate after they establish a cafeteria plan. Cafeteria plans also provide employers with valuable benefits, most notably as a recruiting tool. It certainly stands to reason that if more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits, these owners then will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain more talented workers, which will ultimately increase the firm's business output. Too often, we hear that small businesses loose skilled employees to larger companies simply because a big firm is able to offer a more attractive benefit package. Given that small businesses are responsible for a majority of the new jobs created in this country, we need to reverse that trend, and this bill will go a long way in rectifying this inequity. Clearly, cafeteria plans play a critical role in our Nation's health care system and economy in general. The problem, though, is that in order for companies to qualify for the tax benefits that cafeteria plans provide, they must satisfy strict nondiscrimination rules under the tax code. These rules exist to ensure that the benefits offered to highly compensated employees are offered to non-highly compensated employees as well. The rules also strive to ensure that non-highly compensated employees in fact receive a substantial portion of the benefits provided under the plan. Now I want to be clear when I say that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose. Indeed, we need to be sure that employers are not able to game the tax system by implementing these cafeteria plans, and that the cafeteria plans that qualify for preferential tax treatment are used by a majority of the employees in the company. However, what I find to be unacceptable is the way the tax code attempts to implement this policy under the existing rules. Currently, many small businesses simply cannot satisfy these mechanical rules because, through no fault of their own, they have relatively few employees and a high proportion of owners or highly compensated individuals. As such, were a small business to create a cafeteria plan and violate the non-discrimination rules, certain workers within the company would be subject to a penalty and would be required to include a substantial portion of their contributions in their taxable income. Consequently, many small companies simply do not even bother to implement a cafeteria plan for fear that they will violate the non- discrimination rules. According to the Employer's Council on Flexible Compensation, while 38.36 million U.S. workers had access to cafeteria plans in 1999, only 19 percent of those workers were employees of small businesses. To improve the current situation, the bill I am introducing today will allow and encourage more small businesses to offer employees the opportunity to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars just as larger companies and the federal government do. My bill accomplishes this by creating a Simple Cafeteria Plan, which is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) pension plan. As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees or who is willing to match contributions will be permitted to waive the non-discrimination rules that currently prevent these owners from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse, and I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad-based benefits offered through cafeteria plans. Under the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan, small companies will not have to struggle with satisfying the burdensome non-discrimination rules that often prevent them from offering valuable employee benefits to their workers. As a result, more small business employers will be able to provide their workers with the employee benefits that are often reserved for larger employers and that are otherwise unavailable because of the non-discrimination rules. In addition my bill will expand the types of qualified benefits that will be able to be offered under ALL cafeteria plans--both those that qualify under existing law as well as the new SIMPLE cafeteria plans that will be created. Specifically, my bill modifies the rules governing benefits offered under cafeteria plans, such as flexible spending accounts and dependent-care assistance plans that many larger employers offer their employees. These modifications will increase the likelihood that employees of small businesses will utilize the available benefits and that will increase the benefits provided for all employees. For example, current rules impose a ``use it or lose it'' requirement with respect to flexible spending arrangement contributions. This means that the employee forfeits any money he or she contributes to the account but does not use during the plan. My bill would change that rule and allow employees to carry over up to $500 remaining in their account to the next plan year. The bill would also permit employees to carry-over any unused funds to a retirement account such as a 401(k) plan. In either case, any carried over contributions will reduce the amount that the employee otherwise would be able to contribute to the spending arrangement in the following year so that the carry-over option will not produce a greater dollar benefit for any employee. As a result, more employees are likely to participate in these spending arrangements because they will ultimately be able to use any funds that they contribute without any fear of forfeiting them simply because the funds were not used in the year of contribution. Additionally, this legislation modifies rules that pertain to employer-provided, dependent-care assistance plans. First, it would increase the current $5,000 annual contribution limitation of these plans to $10,000 if the contributing employee claims two or more dependents on his or her tax return. This increase is significant because it will provide these taxpayers with an opportunity to care for not only their children but also an elderly family member who is a dependent of an employee--a scenario that will become increasingly more likely as the current baby-boomer generation continues to age. Second, this bill would amend the current non-discrimination rules that dependent-care assistance plans must satisfy. As is often the case with the majority of small business owners who cannot, through any fault of their own, satisfy the non-discrimination rules for establishing a cafeteria plan, these rules often prevent the owner from offering this valuable benefit to their employees. To remedy this inequity, this bill would change the current mechanical thresholds such that more small businesses can provide dependent-care assistance plans to their employees but in a manner that does not encourage the type of abuse that the non-discrimination rules are intended to prevent. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. It is therefore critical that small businesses owners are able to offer their employees the benefits that cafeteria plans provide so that more of our nation's workers have the opportunity to purchase quality healthcare and provide security for their families. The ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2005'' achieves those objectives, and it does so in a manner that the employers and employees are able to afford. Although the use of pre-tax dollars to acquire these benefits reduces current federal revenues, the opportunity to provide small business employees these same benefits to workers and their families rather than relying on the public sector more than justifies this minimal investment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with you to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2005'' to increase the access to quality, affordable health care for millions of small business owners and their employees. I am pleased that my good friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, as well as my good friend Senator Bingaman from New Mexico have agreed to co-sponsor this critical piece of legislation. Regrettably, our Nation's healthcare system is in the midst of a crisis. Each year, more and more Americans are unable to purchase health insurance, and there are no signs that things are improving. As evidence, the United States Census Bureau estimates that nearly 47 million people did not have health insurance coverage for all of 2002. Sadly, this number rose from 41.2 million uninsured persons in 2001--a 14.6 percent increase. As if these numbers on a national scale are not alarming enough, the results are even more troubling when we look specifically at the small business sector of our economy. Analysis conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan group dedicated to ensuring that all workers have access to affordable health care, suggests that the highest rates of uninsured occur among either self-employed workers or workers whose employer employees fewer than 25 persons. When compared to workers in firms that employ 1,000 or more employees, where just 12.6 percent of those workers do not have health insurance, it becomes clear that the majority of uninsured Americans work for small enterprises. Clearly, these numbers suggest that there is a direct correlation among those persons who do not have health insurance and the size of their employer. The question, then, is why are our Nation's small businesses, which are our country's job creators and the true engine of our national economy, so disadvantaged when it comes to purchasing health insurance. The main reason that small business owners are not able to offer their employees health insurance is because many small business owners are able to pay only a portion of their employees' health insurance premiums or, even worse, cannot afford to provide any health insurance or other employee benefits at all. As a result, many small business workers must acquire health insurance from the private sector rather than the work place--an unfair, and far more expensive alternative. Clearly, we have a problem on our hands. While we can debate among ourselves why this crisis exists and how we ended up here, what is not open for debate is that we need to start identifying ways to fix the system because it is simply unconscionable to do nothing while more and more Americans find themselves without health care. As you know, I re-introduced a bill earlier this year that will go a long ways towards improving the situation by creating Associated Health Plans for small businesses. In general, this bill would permit small businesses throughout the country to band together for purposes of obtaining an insurance quote from an insurance company. By pooling these businesses together, they would pay lower premiums because of the increased risk pool. Again, this bill would increase the number of Americans that would be able to afford health insurance because their insurance premiums would be based on a more reasonable number. The bill I am introducing today builds upon this and goes a step further by putting more small business owners and their employees on a level playing field when compared to workers of a larger company. Specifically, many large companies and even the Federal government enable their employees to purchase health insurance and other qualified benefits with taxfree dollars. Larger companies are able to do this by qualifying for certain employee benefit delivery mechanisms under the tax code. One such delivery mechanism is a cafeteria plan. As the name suggests, cafeteria plans are programs whereby employers offer their employees the opportunity to purchase certain qualified benefits of their choosing. The key here is that the employer provides the opportunity for the employee to purchase the benefit, and the employee is then free to chose whether to participate and which benefits to buy. Under current law, qualified benefits include health insurance, dependent-care reimbursement, and life and disability insurance. Typically, employer contributions, employee contributions, or a combination of the two fund these plans. Cafeteria plans offer valuable benefits to employees and are popular for many reasons. Specifically, they offer employees great flexibility in selecting their desired benefits while enabling them to disregard those benefits that do not fit their particular needs. Participating employees are also able to exclude any wages that they contribute to a cafeteria plan from their Federal taxable income, Social Security, and Medicare, which means they are using more valuable pre-tax dollars to buy these benefits. Moreover, the employees are usually purchasing these benefits at a lower cost because employers are oftentimes able to obtain a reduced price for the benefits through a group rate after they establish a cafeteria plan. Cafeteria plans also provide employers with valuable benefits, most notably as a recruiting tool. It certainly stands to reason that if more small business owners are able to offer their employees the chance to enjoy a variety of employee benefits, these owners then will be more likely to attract, recruit, and retain more talented workers, which will ultimately increase the firm's business output. Too often, we hear that small businesses loose skilled employees to larger companies simply because a big firm is able to offer a more attractive benefit package. Given that small businesses are responsible for a majority of the new jobs created in this country, we need to reverse that trend, and this bill will go a long way in rectifying this inequity. Clearly, cafeteria plans play a critical role in our Nation's health care system and economy in general. The problem, though, is that in order for companies to qualify for the tax benefits that cafeteria plans provide, they must satisfy strict nondiscrimination rules under the tax code. These rules exist to ensure that the benefits offered to highly compensated employees are offered to non-highly compensated employees as well. The rules also strive to ensure that non-highly compensated employees in fact receive a substantial portion of the benefits provided under the plan. Now I want to be clear when I say that these non-discrimination rules serve a legitimate purpose. Indeed, we need to be sure that employers are not able to game the tax system by implementing these cafeteria plans, and that the cafeteria plans that qualify for preferential tax treatment are used by a majority of the employees in the company. However, what I find to be unacceptable is the way the tax code attempts to implement this policy under the existing rules. Currently, many small businesses simply cannot satisfy these mechanical rules because, through no fault of their own, they have relatively few employees and a high proportion of owners or highly compensated individuals. As such, were a small business to create a cafeteria plan and violate the non-discrimination rules, certain workers within the company would be subject to a penalty and would be required to include a substantial portion of their contributions in their taxable income. Consequently, many small companies simply do not even bother to implement a cafeteria plan for fear that they will violate the non- discrimination rules. According to the Employer's Council on Flexible Compensation, while 38.36 million U.S. workers had access to cafeteria plans in 1999, only 19 percent of those workers were employees of small businesses. To improve the current situation, the bill I am introducing today will allow and encourage more small businesses to offer employees the opportunity to purchase health insurance with tax-free dollars just as larger companies and the federal government do. My bill accomplishes this by creating a Simple Cafeteria Plan, which is modeled after the Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) pension plan. As with the SIMPLE pension plan, a small business employer that is willing to make a minimum contribution for all employees or who is willing to match contributions will be permitted to waive the non-discrimination rules that currently prevent these owners from otherwise offering these benefits. This structure has worked extraordinarily well in the pension area with little risk of abuse, and I am confident that it will be just as successful when it comes to broad-based benefits offered through cafeteria plans. Under the SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan, small companies will not have to struggle with satisfying the burdensome non-discrimination rules that often prevent them from offering valuable employee benefits to their workers. As a result, more small business employers will be able to provide their workers with the employee benefits that are often reserved for larger employers and that are otherwise unavailable because of the non-discrimination rules. In addition my bill will expand the types of qualified benefits that will be able to be offered under ALL cafeteria plans--both those that qualify under existing law as well as the new SIMPLE cafeteria plans that will be created. Specifically, my bill modifies the rules governing benefits offered under cafeteria plans, such as flexible spending accounts and dependent-care assistance plans that many larger employers offer their employees. These modifications will increase the likelihood that employees of small businesses will utilize the available benefits and that will increase the benefits provided for all employees. For example, current rules impose a ``use it or lose it'' requirement with respect to flexible spending arrangement contributions. This means that the employee forfeits any money he or she contributes to the account but does not use during the plan. My bill would change that rule and allow employees to carry over up to $500 remaining in their account to the next plan year. The bill would also permit employees to carry-over any unused funds to a retirement account such as a 401(k) plan. In either case, any carried over contributions will reduce the amount that the employee otherwise would be able to contribute to the spending arrangement in the following year so that the carry-over option will not produce a greater dollar benefit for any employee. As a result, more employees are likely to participate in these spending arrangements because they will ultimately be able to use any funds that they contribute without any fear of forfeiting them simply because the funds were not used in the year of contribution. Additionally, this legislation modifies rules that pertain to employer-provided, dependent-care assistance plans. First, it would increase the current $5,000 annual contribution limitation of these plans to $10,000 if the contributing employee claims two or more dependents on his or her tax return. This increase is significant because it will provide these taxpayers with an opportunity to care for not only their children but also an elderly family member who is a dependent of an employee--a scenario that will become increasingly more likely as the current baby-boomer generation continues to age. Second, this bill would amend the current non-discrimination rules that dependent-care assistance plans must satisfy. As is often the case with the majority of small business owners who cannot, through any fault of their own, satisfy the non-discrimination rules for establishing a cafeteria plan, these rules often prevent the owner from offering this valuable benefit to their employees. To remedy this inequity, this bill would change the current mechanical thresholds such that more small businesses can provide dependent-care assistance plans to their employees but in a manner that does not encourage the type of abuse that the non-discrimination rules are intended to prevent. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. It is therefore critical that small businesses owners are able to offer their employees the benefits that cafeteria plans provide so that more of our nation's workers have the opportunity to purchase quality healthcare and provide security for their families. The ``SIMPLE Cafeteria Plan Act of 2005'' achieves those objectives, and it does so in a manner that the employers and employees are able to afford. Although the use of pre-tax dollars to acquire these benefits reduces current federal revenues, the opportunity to provide small business employees these same benefits to workers and their families rather than relying on the public sector more than justifies this minimal investment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with you to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am going to be speaking for 30 seconds for both myself and Senator Wyden on this amendment. This is the one initiative before the Senate that addresses the escalating costs with respect to Medicare Part D that, as we know, has been reestimated by the administration from $400 billion to $534 billion. The CBO has stated that our amendment would be able to negotiate real savings. They said there is a potential for some savings if the Secretary were to have the authority to negotiate prices with the manufacturers of single source drugs. Former Secretary Thompson said he wished that he had the opportunity to negotiate. He said that in his press conference upon his resignation. Finally, 80 percent of seniors support this authority, and so does the American Medical Association for the first time.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague, Senator Wyden, to offer this amendment, and on behalf, as well, of Mr. Feingold, Mr. McCain, and Mrs. Feinstein. The amendment would repeal the prohibition that we now have and was included in the Medicare Modernization Act that passed last year that would have prevented the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating prescription drug prices. I think, as we all know, prescription drugs are an indispensable part of modern medicine today. Drug coverage was not originally part of the Medicare Program. We deemed it, rightfully so, to be part of the new Medicare Program for the future. As we all well know, not only do pharmaceuticals play a critical role, but also we have seen the dramatic rise in prescription drug prices as well. In fact, starting within weeks of passage of the Medicare Modernization Act, we saw a vastly increased cost estimate for the prescription drug benefit. Mr. President, $534 billion from the administration was the reestimate. In fact, we cannot even get the Congressional Budget Office to give us a net cost of this benefit, which seems to be not only escalating but also changing from time to time since the passage of this legislation. And I think we can expect that to be the case in the future. So it is no surprise that the annual growth in the cost of the benefit will far outpace inflation. As this chart indicates, we see an upward trajectory of drug prices that is two and three times the rate of inflation. My good friend, Senator Wyden, and I received a report from the Government Accountability Office, and the news was not good, as this chart illustrates, when you see drug prices going up two and three times the rate of inflation, especially so that this rate increased during the time of consideration of the Medicare Modernization Act. So you can see the major difference in the price changes that is two or three times over the rate of CPI. It is actually even worse than what this graph would indicate. Those with fixed incomes, for example, have seen the long-term effects of the price increases that seniors are experiencing all across America, certainly in my State of Maine. A senior with $250 in monthly drug costs, in 1999, would need to spend $298 to purchase those same prescription drugs in 2003--not newer, not better drugs, but the same products. But this is the trend. This trend indicates that purchasing power is eroding, and beneficiaries are not going to realize the full value, the full benefit, and the full promise of the act that passed that included this new Part D benefit. Now, Senator Wyden and I have introduced legislation repeatedly on the very question as to how we can maximize the value of this prescription drug benefit. It is in the interest of seniors. It is in the interest of taxpayers. It is certainly in the interest of good public policy. One of the best tools we can give the Secretary of Health and Human Services is the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices. There was a prohibition in the Medicare Modernization Act, regrettably. There should not have been a prohibition. We should have been able to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the same authority and prerogative that is utilized at the Veterans' Administration, that is utilized by the Department of Defense, very effectively, very successfully. So why is it that the Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot have that same prerogative and the ability to control prices on prescription drugs, something that is utilized all across America, most certainly by seniors? It can make the difference between life and death, the progression of a disease that ultimately could result in more costly illnesses. So that is what this is all about: whether we are prepared to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices. That is what our amendment does. It allows the Secretary to have that authority. It is permissive authority, but on the other hand, there will be two instances when it would be required. I think it would be in the interest of all of us to understand that this will be an improvement on the legislation that passed that provided the prescription drug benefit. One, as you know, there is a fallback provision in the legislation that passed. In areas of the country where there may not be competitive plans, we want to make sure those seniors, regardless of where they live in America--urban or rural areas--if there is a fallback plan, we want to make sure they get the best prices, competitive pricing. That is why it would require the Secretary, in our amendment, to negotiate prices in those instances, so that they don't become victims of high prices because there is a lack of competitive plans to be offered in that particular area of the country. The second instance would be, if providers would request assistance because the manufacturers are not negotiating in good faith. Again, that is another instance which we think would be desirable in the interest of good public policy to ensure that the Government is negotiating the very best prices because, ultimately, it is going to be the taxpayers. It will drive up the cost of the prescription drug plan that went from $400 billion up to $534 billion, and we don't have any idea how high it is going to go. CBO is not even prepared to estimate it at this time. I cannot imagine why there would not be a willingness on the part of the Senate to embrace this approach and give the negotiating power to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In fact, former Secretary Thompson indicated that he wished he had had that authority. At his press conference, during the time of his resignation as Secretary, he indicated: I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate. That is a very powerful statement coming from the former Secretary. He well understood that the vital ingredient for controlling the cost of prescription drugs was to have this negotiating power in order to ensure that we could maximize this legislation, this benefit on behalf of seniors, most certainly, and also on behalf of taxpayers. We have seen the annual increased projections of about 8.5 percent and the cost of the Part D benefit. I don't think any of us are under any illusion that if we, the Federal Government, don't have this ability to use and exercise this prerogative at key moments in time, we will lose and devalue this benefit for seniors because their purchasing power will erode quickly over time. With that, I would like to yield to my colleague, Senator Wyden of Oregon. I appreciate his leadership on this issue and working to make sure we have the very best initiative that would, hopefully, draw a majority of support in the Senate.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman to strike the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and replace them with a reserve fund for the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and make recommendations to Congress within 1 year. The Medicaid program provides essential medical services to low- income and uninsured children and their families, pregnant women, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and others. Last year, nearly 55 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid, including more than 300,000 in Maine where one in five people now receive health care services through MaineCare, my State's Medicaid program. Individuals who rely upon Medicaid-funded health services have no other option. Without Medicaid, they would join the ever growing ranks of the uninsured in this country, which now numbers an all-time high of more than 45 million Americans who lacked health coverage at some point last year. These two groups represent a total of 100 million Americans who would have no health insurance, were it not for Medicaid coverage which reaches just over half of them. And to the extent that the Federal Government reduces its support for Medicaid funding, the numbers of uninsured Americans will rise even more rapidly. Medicaid is a critical part of our Nation's health care system. It provides health coverage for people in the doctor's office, rather than the emergency rooms, where care is more expensive. It also plays a crucial role in preventing health care costs for the uninsured from being shifted to the private sector, which in turn increases hospitals' costs. The economic downturn which state economies experienced several years ago, and from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing them to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the states already strapped with budget scarcities. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations. As the Senate considers the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, I believe that we must take a balanced approach that is fiscally responsible yet reflects our long-standing commitments to provide health care for many of the low-income and uninsured through the Medicaid program. Decisions on Medicaid funding involve issues of fairness and balance, and it is our responsibility to balance these concerns on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger. I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I believe that reducing the deficit is critical for our Nation's fiscal health. We should not pass down a legacy of debt to our children. At the same time, we should do no less than to meet our obligations to our uninsured children and their families, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities. My home State of Maine is a relatively poor state which relies heavily on Medicaid matching funds. Maine's Federal match is roughly 65 percent, compared to the national average of about 57 percent. This means that for every dollar in State funds spent on Medicaid, the State receives nearly $2 in Federal matching funds. Of the $7.7 billion spent on health care in Maine in 2004, $2 billion--26 percent--came from the MaineCare program. Of the $2 billion in Medicaid spending, nearly two- thirds, or $1.4 billion, came from Federal Medicaid dollars. Maine has suffered disproportionately from a loss of manufacturing jobs--and the health insurance coverage that goes with them. Medicaid has helped cover those uninsured, allowing our overall rate of uninsurance in Maine to stay even or improve for those with income below 200 percent of the poverty level. Medicaid is also an essential program for providing health services to children and other vulnerable populations Children are nearly half-- 44 percent--of Maine's Medicaid clients yet they require less than one quarter of the funding, clearly a very cost-effective use of our health care dollars. Children need access to health care to do well in school, and to do well in life, and Medicaid plays a key role in narrowing the ``achievement gap.'' Children who are in pain, or sick, are not able to pay attention and learn, and those with untreated illnesses can develop long-term disabilities, such as hearing impairments, that require expensive special education and make it harder for them to do well in school. It is crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal funding for Medicaid, a program which has worked extremely well since it began providing care for some of our most vulnerable populations 40 years ago. That's why I believe we must proceed cautiously before making significant changes that could damage the program. As we debate the budget resolution and consider the instructions for spending cuts that the Finance Committee would be required to produce-- with Medicaid squarely in its sights--we must recognize that the Federal Government cannot simply abandon its responsibility to help states provide health care to our most vulnerable citizens. Finding workable solutions on the financial sustainability of Medicaid will take time, expertise, and bipartisan consensus and are more appropriately the province of a bipartisan medicaid commission than a budget debate. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I want to make some closing comments on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden because it is important to reiterate several facts about this approach. First of all, the point is the Medicare Modernization Act included a direct prohibition against the Secretary's authority to negotiate, an authority that is already utilized by the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense. That is a fact. The second fact is those soaring costs with respect to the Part D program as we know it. Within a month after the enactment, we had a restatement from the administration of $534 billion. The CBO isn't even prepared to give a net cost of that legislation. We only expect that the price is going to go up, up. As Senator Wyden indicated, the only tool we have to negotiate prices to keep those prices low, particularly in situations, for example, where the Congressional Budget Office indicated to us in a report that with sole-source drugs, where there are drugs that have no competition, we will realize savings. That is a responsibility we have to seniors and to the taxpayers with respect to this program. Finally, it is indicated that Secretary Thompson made this comment. He said, ``I would like to have the opportunity to negotiate.'' He was asked a question in his final press conference as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The question was, ``You listed the drug benefit as one of your proudest achievements. Was there anything you really pushed for in that bill that didn't get in or that you would like to see Medicare tackle in the future?'' Note the fact that the question didn't even suggest negotiations. But his answer was, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate.'' And for good reason, because the Secretary understood that the price of this program and the price of the benefit was only going to go in one direction, and that is up. It defies logic that we would not allow the Secretary to have the ability to negotiate the very best prices in certain instances and in other instances which the Secretary deems worthwhile. A final point: In a recent poll, 80 percent of the American people believe the Secretary should have the ability to negotiate on their behalf. In the final analysis, this is the amendment that is going to save money--save money in the drug program, save money to the taxpayer, save money to the seniors. It is hard for me to believe anyone would ultimately reject it. I again thank Senator Wyden for all of his support and leadership over the last few years to make this happen.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, on International Women's Day, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Historically, women's health care needs have been ignored or poorly understood, and women have been systematically excluded from important health research. We heard just this week about a landmark example. One federally-funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. When a benefit was found in men, many physicians assumed that the same protective effect applied to women. Just this week, after research on women was finally conducted, we learned that the effect of aspirin on women appear to be quite different. We are simply not protected in the same way men are protected. It is tragic that so much of our medicine has been based on such assumptions. Today we recognize that both genders should benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Yet equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about differences in women--in symptoms of disease, and in appropriate measures for prevention and treatment--frequently lags far behind our knowledge of men's health. We must also recognize that some diseases--such as ovarian cancer and endometriosis--affect only women. Other diseases affect women disproportionately--such as osteoporosis. We also see differences in health care access between men and women. These simply must be reflected in our health policy. It is for these reasons that we are again introducing the Women's Health Office Act. 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 this bill will ensure that. I must also note today, on International Women's Day, that of all the disease threats to women, few rival the threat of AIDS. Increasingly, the face of the individual with HIV-infection is a woman's. Tragically, it is often the woman's husband who places her at risk, yet in many societies, the status of women makes her use of prevention difficult. One promising way to counter the risk of HIV infection is the development of an effective microbicide--a typical product which women could use to reduce their risk of contracting HIV. A number of scientists are working to develop such a product. If successful, this could prevent millions of infections, and would be a practical means of prevention in much of the world where options for women are so few. For this reason I again join Senator Corzine today in introducing the Microbicides Development Act. This legislation will establish a coordination of this development at the NIH to reduce the toll of AIDS. Just today we read of a promising new microbicide which appears to show great promise. We must ensure that the promise of microbicides become reality for millions of women. This research is spread over multiple Institutes at NIH, and definitely will benefit from the coordination and integration which this Act will instill. Today, on a day when we recognize both the achievements and contributions of women, it is fitting, that we provide the support and opportunity to facilitate the continued progress of women, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will ensure better health for our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, both here and abroad.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, on International Women's Day, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act with my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Historically, women's health care needs have been ignored or poorly understood, and women have been systematically excluded from important health research. We heard just this week about a landmark example. One federally-funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death among women. When a benefit was found in men, many physicians assumed that the same protective effect applied to women. Just this week, after research on women was finally conducted, we learned that the effect of aspirin on women appear to be quite different. We are simply not protected in the same way men are protected. It is tragic that so much of our medicine has been based on such assumptions. Today we recognize that both genders should benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Yet equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about differences in women--in symptoms of disease, and in appropriate measures for prevention and treatment--frequently lags far behind our knowledge of men's health. We must also recognize that some diseases--such as ovarian cancer and endometriosis--affect only women. Other diseases affect women disproportionately--such as osteoporosis. We also see differences in health care access between men and women. These simply must be reflected in our health policy. It is for these reasons that we are again introducing the Women's Health Office Act. 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 this bill will ensure that. I must also note today, on International Women's Day, that of all the disease threats to women, few rival the threat of AIDS. Increasingly, the face of the individual with HIV-infection is a woman's. Tragically, it is often the woman's husband who places her at risk, yet in many societies, the status of women makes her use of prevention difficult. One promising way to counter the risk of HIV infection is the development of an effective microbicide--a typical product which women could use to reduce their risk of contracting HIV. A number of scientists are working to develop such a product. If successful, this could prevent millions of infections, and would be a practical means of prevention in much of the world where options for women are so few. For this reason I again join Senator Corzine today in introducing the Microbicides Development Act. This legislation will establish a coordination of this development at the NIH to reduce the toll of AIDS. Just today we read of a promising new microbicide which appears to show great promise. We must ensure that the promise of microbicides become reality for millions of women. This research is spread over multiple Institutes at NIH, and definitely will benefit from the coordination and integration which this Act will instill. Today, on a day when we recognize both the achievements and contributions of women, it is fitting, that we provide the support and opportunity to facilitate the continued progress of women, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will ensure better health for our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, both here and abroad.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce a bill that I offered last year that I hope will be the first in a series of proposals to simplify the Tax Code for small business owners. Once enacted, these provisions will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but I believe they also will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies in trying to satisfy their tax obligation. Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that the President has made simplifying the Tax Code one of his top priorities for his second term. Clearly, a world-class economy such as that of the United States requires a world-class revenue collection system, meaning we need a Tax Code that is simple, consistent, and fair. For that reason, I look forward to seeing the recommendations that the President's tax reform panel will offer on how best we can reform the current Tax Code to improve its efficiency and strengthen our overall economy. In the interim, the proposal that I am re-introducing today will simplify the code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn fewer than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome record-keeping requirements that they must deal with currently in paying their income taxes. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we simplify the Tax Code. As you know, Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private- sector output. Yet, the despite the fact that small businesses are the engine that drives our improving economy, the current tax system imposes entirely unreasonable burdens on them when they try to satisfy their tax obligations. As you know, the current tax code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. The problem, though, is that small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation vis-a-vis larger firms. For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend more than 8 billion hours each year filling-out government reports, and they spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $6,975 per employee in tax compliance costs, and this amount is nearly 60 percent more than companies spend with more than 500 employees. These statistics are disconcerting for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--namely running their business and creating jobs. Let me be clear, however, that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I am certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. In order to benefit from the freedoms and protections that our great country provides, individuals and businesses alike are required to pay taxes, and this duty inevitably imposes some minimum administrative and opportunity cost. What I am asking for, though, is a fairer, simpler Tax Code that allows small companies to satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently. For that reason, the package of proposals that I hope to introduce will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but they also will simplify the rules that exist currently. By simplifying the Tax Code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, and they consequently will be able to invest more time and resources into their business. As I mentioned earlier, the provision that I am introducing today will permit more taxpayers to use the cash method of accounting rather than the accrual method. Generally, current law permits only those taxpayers that earn fewer than $5 million in gross receipts during the tax year to use the cash method in reporting their income. In addition, current law precludes taxpayers that have inventory from using the cash method. This means that thousands of small businesses that should be entitled to report their income and expenses under the cash method of accounting are required to follow the accrual method, which tends to impose additional financial and administrative costs that should be eliminated. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the cash method. In short, my bill increases the gross receipts test under current law to $10 million and indexes this higher threshold to account for inflation. As the current $5 million threshold is clearly outdated, it makes little sense to have such an obsolete standard for this most important provision. My bill also changes current law to permit those taxpayers with inventory to qualify for the cash method of accounting. Notably, however, my bill will not give these taxpayers an opportunity to simply recover costs associated with these otherwise inventoriable assets in the year of purchase. Rather, my bill will require these taxpayers to account for such costs as if they are a material or supply that is not incidental. This standard already exists under current law, and it is one with which many small businesses are already familiar. As such, this less-burdensome standard should ease the existing compliance burden for eligible taxpayers and allow them to devote more time and resources to their business. Importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a small business pays by even one dollar. Indeed, the overall amount of taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. Rather, this bill simply permits more taxpayers to report income and account for costs in the year of the receipt or expenditure. Clearly, this method is much easier and simpler for small taxpayers, and it will reduce both their time and monetary expenditures spent on complying with the Tax Code.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Leahy, to ensure that the private, personal identification information filed in bankruptcy proceedings does not fall into the hands of identity thieves, violent stalkers, and other persons with criminal intentions. I, along with my colleague Senator Cantwell, join as cosponsors to the Leahy amendment and urge its adoption by the Senate. This amendment is endorsed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is presided over by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and to which Congress regularly defers in the writing of the rules of our Federal court system. Bankruptcy court filings, like most other court proceedings, are public record, and most papers filed in these cases are publicly available record. This is a good thing, because the administration of justice in our country should not be a secret affair. It is the public's right to know how its courts are meting out justice. The Bankruptcy Code affirmatively adopts this policy. At the same time, bankruptcy proceedings are unique in that the explicit financial information of the debtor and its creditors are filed with the court, and likewise available for public review. Such information includes not only a person's name and address, but information such as the person's social security number, date of birth, driver's license number, and electronic addresses and routing codes. This information has long been available for public review at our Nation's courthouses. However, in today's information age, more and more Federal courts are making all of their public documents available on-line as well. While this is an advancement in efficiency in most regards, it opens up a great potential for abuse for identity thieves and others who access the Internet with the intent to commit fraud, physical harm, or other crimes. More and more agencies today gain access to such personal information through publicly available documents. And as the recent computer hacking incident at Choice Point Corporation demonstrates, such personal information can be obtained even from companies in the businesses of collecting and securely storing such information. Moreover, access to such personal, sensitive information could pose serious risks to victims of domestic abuse, stalking, and other violent crime. Because any person with a computer can obtain these court documents, a person's safety and the safety of her property could be seriously put at risk. Senator Leahy, Senator Cantwell, and I have devised this amendment to help prevent these harmful invasions of privacy from ever occurring. Currently the Bankruptcy Code allows courts to issue protective orders to prevent public disclosure of trade secrets and confidential research and commercial information. Our amendment would expand the court's authority to provide for similar protection of the personally identifiable information that I just described, as well as give the court the ability to shield other information if its release would create an undue risk of either identity theft or of injury to an individual's person or property. It further provides that when publicly available notices are filed with the court, only the last four digits of a person's social security number are required to be included in the documents. A separate filing with the full social security number will be sent privately to each party in interest in the bankruptcy proceeding. This amendment also creates an exception to ensure that law enforcement can gain access, and it has the support of the Department of Justice. Furthermore, I have worked closely with the sponsors of the underlying bill, which I support, to ensure that this amendment does nothing to harm the efficient functioning of the credit and banking industries. Credit reporting agencies often rely on taxpayer identification numbers--most often social security numbers--to determine a person's creditworthiness. To ensure accuracy in such credit reports, we have modified the original language of this amendment to address the industry's concerns without in any way weakening the protections that we seek to enact. The new language strikes the appropriate balance for all concerned, and I understand that the industry finds the modification acceptable. Giving the sensitive nature of bankruptcy filings and the increased threat of identity theft in today's society, this is a common sense measure to the underlying bankruptcy reform bill, which I support. I am pleased that all sides have come to agreement, and that this amendment will be adopted.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce a bill that I offered last year that I hope will be the first in a series of proposals to simplify the Tax Code for small business owners. Once enacted, these provisions will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but I believe they also will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies in trying to satisfy their tax obligation. Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that the President has made simplifying the Tax Code one of his top priorities for his second term. Clearly, a world-class economy such as that of the United States requires a world-class revenue collection system, meaning we need a Tax Code that is simple, consistent, and fair. For that reason, I look forward to seeing the recommendations that the President's tax reform panel will offer on how best we can reform the current Tax Code to improve its efficiency and strengthen our overall economy. In the interim, the proposal that I am re-introducing today will simplify the code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn fewer than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome record-keeping requirements that they must deal with currently in paying their income taxes. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we simplify the Tax Code. As you know, Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private- sector output. Yet, the despite the fact that small businesses are the engine that drives our improving economy, the current tax system imposes entirely unreasonable burdens on them when they try to satisfy their tax obligations. As you know, the current tax code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. The problem, though, is that small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation vis-a-vis larger firms. For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend more than 8 billion hours each year filling-out government reports, and they spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $6,975 per employee in tax compliance costs, and this amount is nearly 60 percent more than companies spend with more than 500 employees. These statistics are disconcerting for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--namely running their business and creating jobs. Let me be clear, however, that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I am certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. In order to benefit from the freedoms and protections that our great country provides, individuals and businesses alike are required to pay taxes, and this duty inevitably imposes some minimum administrative and opportunity cost. What I am asking for, though, is a fairer, simpler Tax Code that allows small companies to satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently. For that reason, the package of proposals that I hope to introduce will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, but they also will simplify the rules that exist currently. By simplifying the Tax Code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, and they consequently will be able to invest more time and resources into their business. As I mentioned earlier, the provision that I am introducing today will permit more taxpayers to use the cash method of accounting rather than the accrual method. Generally, current law permits only those taxpayers that earn fewer than $5 million in gross receipts during the tax year to use the cash method in reporting their income. In addition, current law precludes taxpayers that have inventory from using the cash method. This means that thousands of small businesses that should be entitled to report their income and expenses under the cash method of accounting are required to follow the accrual method, which tends to impose additional financial and administrative costs that should be eliminated. My bill changes these existing rules so that more small businesses will be able to use the cash method. In short, my bill increases the gross receipts test under current law to $10 million and indexes this higher threshold to account for inflation. As the current $5 million threshold is clearly outdated, it makes little sense to have such an obsolete standard for this most important provision. My bill also changes current law to permit those taxpayers with inventory to qualify for the cash method of accounting. Notably, however, my bill will not give these taxpayers an opportunity to simply recover costs associated with these otherwise inventoriable assets in the year of purchase. Rather, my bill will require these taxpayers to account for such costs as if they are a material or supply that is not incidental. This standard already exists under current law, and it is one with which many small businesses are already familiar. As such, this less-burdensome standard should ease the existing compliance burden for eligible taxpayers and allow them to devote more time and resources to their business. Importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a small business pays by even one dollar. Indeed, the overall amount of taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. Rather, this bill simply permits more taxpayers to report income and account for costs in the year of the receipt or expenditure. Clearly, this method is much easier and simpler for small taxpayers, and it will reduce both their time and monetary expenditures spent on complying with the Tax Code.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Collins, to introduce legislation, the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, to create a safety pilot program for commercial trucks. This bill would authorize a safety demonstration program in my home State of Maine that could be a model for other States. I have been working closely with the Maine Department of Transportation, communities in my State, and others to address statewide concerns about the existing Federal interstate truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds. I believe that safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and highways, and I am very concerned that the existing interstate weight limit has the unintended impact of forcing commercial trucks onto State and local secondary roads that were never designed to safely handle such heavy commercial trucks. We are talking about narrow roads, lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones. I have been working to address this concern for many years. During the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a waiver from Federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike, the 100-mile section of Maine's interstate in the southern portion of the State, and it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also shared my concerns with the Department of Transportation and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to urge them to work with me in an effort to address my concern with the safety of my constituents. In addition, the Maine Department of Transportation has nearly concluded a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes of expanding this study, in order to secure the data necessary to ensure that commercial trucks operate in the safest possible manner. Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 pounds, on the Interstate System, but the fact is there are a myriad of exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads don't. In fact, lower weight limits only encourage more trucks to operate on these very roads, only heightening the wear and tear as well as increasing the potential danger to both drivers and pedestrians. The legislation I am submitting today would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate System within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in this issue, safety advocates, truckers, States, and communities, to address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Collins, to introduce legislation, the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, to create a safety pilot program for commercial trucks. This bill would authorize a safety demonstration program in my home State of Maine that could be a model for other States. I have been working closely with the Maine Department of Transportation, communities in my State, and others to address statewide concerns about the existing Federal interstate truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds. I believe that safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and highways, and I am very concerned that the existing interstate weight limit has the unintended impact of forcing commercial trucks onto State and local secondary roads that were never designed to safely handle such heavy commercial trucks. We are talking about narrow roads, lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones. I have been working to address this concern for many years. During the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a waiver from Federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike, the 100-mile section of Maine's interstate in the southern portion of the State, and it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also shared my concerns with the Department of Transportation and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to urge them to work with me in an effort to address my concern with the safety of my constituents. In addition, the Maine Department of Transportation has nearly concluded a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes of expanding this study, in order to secure the data necessary to ensure that commercial trucks operate in the safest possible manner. Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 pounds, on the Interstate System, but the fact is there are a myriad of exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads don't. In fact, lower weight limits only encourage more trucks to operate on these very roads, only heightening the wear and tear as well as increasing the potential danger to both drivers and pedestrians. The legislation I am submitting today would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate System within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in this issue, safety advocates, truckers, States, and communities, to address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to reintroduce five different bills important to my State of Maine that were included in the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last year. Unfortunately, that larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 108th Congress, but I am pleased that the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently stated that WRDA is on the committee's agenda for consideration soon. My hope is that all five bills will once again be included in the WRDA legislation in the 109th Congress. All of my bills are non-controversial, and, importantly, are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers. The first bill, S. 462, pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, Maine. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel, FNC, would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel. My second bill, S. 463, concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, Maine. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. My third bill, S. 464, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, Maine. The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. My fourth bill, S. 465, will carry out a project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, Maine, attributable to the Saco River navigation project. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests. My fifth bill, S. 466, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midcoast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways. The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the City and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience. Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers. The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is $3.8 million a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over If $2.5 million a year in the state. I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and businesspeople with the vision and commitment we need to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today as lead cosponsor of S.J. Res. 5, the Feinstein-Snowe joint resolution that authorizes the Secretary of State to engage in efforts with other Federal agencies to lead international negotiations to mitigate the impacts of global warming. Our resolution encourages the United States to take actions to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions believed by the majority of internationally renowned scientists to be causing climate changes around the globe. I support this resolution because ongoing scientific peer-reviewed research demonstrates that climate change is one of the most significant environmental and economical issues of the 21st century. Yet, I have grave concerns that our government, to borrow from the image of Nero, is fiddling as the planet warms. On Wednesday, February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change officially entered into force, with 141 States and regional economic integration organizations depositing instruments of ratifications, accessions, approvals or acceptances with the United Nations. The treaty, which will require mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in 35 participating developed countries starting in 2008, represents a watershed moment for international action on climate change. The Protocol was agreed to by governments at a 1997 U.N. conference in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by developed countries by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Even with the Kyoto Protocol going into effect, it is obvious that new and longer term ideas for securing international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies at the table. The United States and Australia have not ratified the Protocol, and developing countries, while signatories to Kyoto, are not required to make cuts. This includes large, rapidly industrializing economies such as China, India, and Brazil. Clearly, as the causes of climate change are global and the atmosphere knows no boundaries, the challenge can only be met with all the countries of the world working together. That is why, this past year, when asked by three major independent think tanks--the Center for American Progress in the US, the Institute for Public Policy Research in the U.K. and the Australia Institute--I accepted the co-chairmanship of the high level International Climate Change Taskforce--the ICCT--to chart a way forward on climate change on a parallel track with the Kyoto process. This led me to meetings both in Washington and London with my co- chair, the Rt. Honorable Stephen Byers of the U.K. Mr. Byers told me that Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed the creation of the taskforce and looked forward to its climate change recommendations that he could take forward as he assumed the presidency of the G8 and also the EU in 2005. In fact, Prime Minister Blair has made the issue of climate change a centerpiece of his agenda for the G8 meeting in July in Gleneagles, Scotland, and, recently, he included some of our recommendations in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. We have achieved our goals for recommendations for the taskforce, which is an international, cross-party, cross-sector collaboration of leaders from public service, science, business, and civil society from both developed and developing countries. We set out a pathway to solve climate change issues in tandem--collaboratively finding common ground through recommendations that are both ambitious and realistic to engage all countries, and, critically, including those not bound by the Kyoto Protocol and major developing countries. We hope our proposals will be a prelude to the international dialogue and, ultimately, set the score for lasting change. Our ICCT report, Meeting the Climate Challenge, recommends ways to involve the world's largest economies in the effort, including the U.S. and major developing nations, focusing on creating new agreements to achieve the deployment of clean energy technologies, and a new global policy framework that is both inclusive and fair. The report also calls for the establishment of a long-term objective of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit--(2 degrees Centigrade)--above the pre-industrial level by the end of the century, and this same provision is contained in the Feinstein-Snowe Resolution. Mr. President, the taskforce arrived at the 2 degrees Centigrade--or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit--temperature increase goal on the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature that shows that, as the ICC report states, ``Beyond the 2 degree Centigrade level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increased larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increases numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts.'' Our report goes on to say that, ``Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2 degrees C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)''. I am pleased that the S.J. Res. includes the ICCT's first recommendation: Establishing a long-term objective for a global average temperature increase. This comports well with the McCain and Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act introduced last week, for which I am a cosponsor. This bill would create a domestic market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Again, the ICCT Taskforce recommends that all developed countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and to construct them to allow for their future integration into a single global market. The Feinstein-Snowe resolution includes other goals of the ICCT taskforce, encouraging the U.S. to carry out reasonable and responsible actions to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions of manmade greenhouse gases, particularly through generating climate- friendly technologies to promote sustained economic growth. Importantly, like the ICCT Report, it also calls for international negotiations under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, UNFCCC, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992, and this should be done for the post-Kyoto period, or after 2012. Mr. President, even with the Kyoto Protocol going into effect, it is obvious that new ideas for securing international cooperation are necessary as we cannot get to the heart of this global problem without the world's major economies at the table. We have a choice between an even greater treacherous path of increased environmental damage and economic harm, or an upward path to a better future for our planet, and enhanced competitiveness for our industries. Again, the ICCT report addresses this, calling for the formation of a G8 plus Climate Group I between the G8 and the major developing countries to pursue technology agreements and related initiatives that will truly lead to large global emissions reductions. To mitigate further losses, the U.S. should actively engage in the discussions at the upcoming G8 Summit, offering viable recommendations and realistic goals for further domestic and international emissions reductions. The U.S. can ensure the protection of the competitiveness of U.S. industry while at the same time joining with others to take positive action to tackle global warming. The U.S. has the opportunity to re-engage as a world leader, serving as a model for developing nations such as China and India, whose unchecked CO2 emissions will soon rival those of the United States. The urgency is clear as climate change is no longer an abstract concept. Polar ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. And the earth's temperature is undeniably climbing--with ten of the warmest years on record since 1990. Documented by countless scientific studies, the world bears witness to the effects of climate change. A result of increases in manmade carbon dioxide emissions, climate change appears to be impacting the planet's weather patterns, resulting in more severe, sustained storm systems, floods, heat waves, and droughts. Earlier this month, an international conference of scientists recommended that action must be taken now to reduce emissions in order to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Their report warned that a delay of even five years could be significant. And, beyond environmental devastation, climate change dictates serious economic and human costs. Mr. President, it has been a privilege to work on this Senate Joint Resolution with Senator Feinstein of California, and I urge my colleagues to give our resolution full consideration as the rest of the developed world strives not only to protect today's environment and economies but to bequeath a healthy and sustainable planet to future generations. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Jeffords and Rockefeller. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine, education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and has given parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2005'' provides States with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's degree. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's ``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first 2 years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of study time, employment or work experience for at least 24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second 2 years--for those enrolled in a four year program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and, importantly, keep them off of welfare. The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self- sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible.'' These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. Giving States the option use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the federal program for too long.

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to reintroduce five different bills important to my State of Maine that were included in the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, last year. Unfortunately, that larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 108th Congress, but I am pleased that the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently stated that WRDA is on the committee's agenda for consideration soon. My hope is that all five bills will once again be included in the WRDA legislation in the 109th Congress. All of my bills are non-controversial, and, importantly, are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers. The first bill, S. 462, pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, Maine. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel, FNC, would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel. My second bill, S. 463, concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, Maine. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. My third bill, S. 464, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, Maine. The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. My fourth bill, S. 465, will carry out a project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, Maine, attributable to the Saco River navigation project. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests. My fifth bill, S. 466, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midcoast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways. The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the City and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience. Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers. The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is $3.8 million a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over If $2.5 million a year in the state. I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and businesspeople with the vision and commitment we need to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Jeffords and Rockefeller. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine, education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and has given parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2005'' provides States with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's degree. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's ``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first 2 years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of study time, employment or work experience for at least 24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second 2 years--for those enrolled in a four year program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and, importantly, keep them off of welfare. The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self- sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible.'' These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. Giving States the option use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the federal program for too long.