Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank, first and foremost, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, for his commitment and for moving this legislation out of the committee as the first of a group of health- related bills to be referred out of his committee as the new leader, the chair of this committee this year. I thank the chairman for doing so and I express my gratitude to him. This sends a very significant message to the House of Representatives of the importance and the value of this initiative. Senator Enzi not only as chair of this committee but previously was instrumental for participating in negotiations for more than 16 months to help fashion a consensus on the legislation now before the Senate and that was enacted through his committee, as well. I thank him for his leadership that made it possible to bring this legislation to the Senate. I also express my appreciation to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Kennedy, as ranking member of the HELP Committee, who has been a longtime champion of protection for an individual's private health information, dedicating himself over the past year and a half toward forging a bipartisan solution to this issue. Also, as a result of the considerable yeoman efforts of the Senate majority leader, a major breakthrough occurred on this legislative initiative. The Senate majority leader agreed to the necessity of this legislation the last few years in making it possible. It was due in large measure to his stalwart efforts in working with me and others such as Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, and Senator Jeffords, who has been a collaborator on this issue for 8 years, which made it possible to forge this bipartisan effort. I thank the Senate majority leader because he, obviously, was pivotal in ensuring we could pave the way for the passage of this legislation as we did last fall in October with unanimous support. Hopefully, we will receive the same support for this initiative today, as well. I thank the leader for giving his support and vital efforts to making this possible. I thank him for his vision and tireless support. Also, I thank Senator Gregg who last year dedicated significant time and staff resources when he was the previous chair of the committee and for helping to make it a priority of his committee last year when he chaired the HELP Committee. Also, Senator Dodd has been deeply committed to fighting to ensure that consumers have the strongest possible protections afforded to them with the passage of this legislation. Since April of 1996 when I first introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Health Insurance Act, along with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, science has continued to hurtle forward, further opening the door to early detection and medical intervention through the discovery and identification of specific genes linked to diseases such as breast cancer, Huntington's disease, glaucoma, colon cancer, and cystic fibrosis. We recognized in 1996 with progress in the field of genetics accelerating at a breathtaking pace that we must ensure the fast arriving scientific advances in treatment and prevention of diseases do not advance a new basis for discrimination. As with countless scientific breakthroughs in history, the eventual completion of the genome project not only brought the prospects of medical advances such as improved detection and earlier intervention but also the potential for harm and abuse. Every day since that breakthrough, the American people have been vulnerable to this type of discrimination. The everyday risk of discrimination has inhibited the full use of this vast, still untapped reservoir of knowledge. As I have said previously, the fear of repercussions from one's genetic makeup was brought home to me through the real-life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote to me and told me she was too afraid to have the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though nine women in her immediate family were diagnosed with breast cancer and she herself was a survivor. She was worried that knowledge might damage her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. Bonnie Lee was not alone in her fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it, citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. What value is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit? I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom we would not have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the genome project, he explained the project scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to accomplish this, he said: We need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome. With all this tremendous potential, this effort cannot reach its full promise if patients have a reason to feel repercussions of genetic test results. Given the advances in science, there are two distinct concerns at hand. The first, of course, is discrimination by health insurance. The second is employment discrimination based simply upon an individual's genetic information. This legislation addresses both of these issues based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health insurance, these are clear and familiar issues which the Senate has previously debated in the context of larger patient privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what now is known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed medical information privacy. Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA and our legislation which accomplishes just that. Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well as the request to receive a genetic test from being used by the insurer against the patient. The fact is, genetic information only detects the potential for genetically linked disease or disorder. And potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. It is critical this information be available to health care professionals to diagnosis or treat an illness. Without the protection which this bill offers, patients will not be able to take advantage of our ever-increasing knowledge of genetics. On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history in debating health privacy matters, the issue surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill institutes these protections in the workplace. There should be no question of this necessity. Indeed, it is an imperative. The threat of employment discrimination is not hypothetical, and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before such abuse becomes widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have considerable case law and legislative history on which to build. Indeed, as we considered the necessity for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and possible remedies for instances of genetic discrimination and whether they should differ from existing remedies under current law, such as the American Disabilities Act or the EEOC. This bill creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifying the remedies available to victims of discrimination. So regardless of their religion, race, or DNA, people will all receive the same protections under the law. There will be an across-the-board Federal standard which becomes so critical to fundamental protections under the law. It has been more than 4 years since the completion of the working draft of the human genome. Like a book that sits unopened, the wonders of the human genome are useless if it is compromised by the fear of discrimination. This legislation is a shining example of what can be accomplished when we set aside partisan differences in order to address the challenges facing the American people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank the chair of the committee for his instrumental and pivotal leadership to bring this legislation to the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to introduce the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. I am joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Talent, Bond, Byrd, Dole, McCain, Hutchison, Coleman, Vitter and Martinez. This bill creates Association Health Plans (AHPs), also called Small Business Health Plans, that give small businesses the same market based advantages and leverage that large employers and unions currently enjoy when providing health insurance to their employees. AHPs directly address one of the most critical issues facing small businesses nationwide: the crisis small businesses face trying to provide health insurance for their employees. No other issue has been mentioned so frequently or by so many of the small businesses with whom I have met since I became Chair. While the problem has been growing for years, the outcry has built so that now it is indeed a loud chorus of small businesses desperate for relief and demanding that something be done. Without exception, every small business person who has approached me has asked me to do something about the crushing burden from increased health insurance costs. The anecdotal accounts that I have heard have been confirmed by reports detailing how much health insurance costs are increasing across the board for all employers and especially for small businesses. The Kaiser Family Foundation has reported that health insurance premiums increased between the spring of 2003 and spring of 2004 by 11.2 percent. This is the fourth such year of double digit increases and follows increases of 13.9 percent, 12.9 percent and 10.9 percent. In contrast, overall inflation during the last three years was 2.3 percent, 2.2 percent and 1.6 percent, wage gains for non-supervisory workers were similarly stable at 2.2 percent, 3.1 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. This is an astonishing trend. Not only are the costs for employers increasing, but these are now being passed onto the employees. As a result, the amount of premium employees pay for family coverage has increased almost 64 percent over the past 4 years, from $1,619 to $2,661. As I have heard from many small businesses, increases in insurance costs often mean employees do not get the benefit of salary and wage increases. Employers are rewarding employees with raises and then requiring them to pay more of their health insurance. These employers are disheartened that they are giving a raise with one hand and then turning around and taking it away with the other. The Kaiser report also shows that this year, firms with 3 to 199 workers had premium increases of 9.1 percent and the smallest firms with 3 to 9 workers averaged 12.4 percent increases. So we see that as bad as things have gotten they're worse for the smallest businesses who are the source of as much as 75 percent of our country's new jobs. In my meetings with small businesses, they invariably report increases far greater than even these percentages, generally 30 percent, 40 percent or more. The increase in these costs can not be dismissed as just another cost of doing business and absorbed or passed on to customers, because we know small businesses often have lower profit margins for their goods and services than other businesses. These skyrocketing costs often mean the difference between the business expanding or struggling to survive. The high cost of health insurance can even make the difference in whether a small business creates new jobs. Small businesses have told me that the high cost of providing health care is preventing small businesses from adding more employees because they can not afford the additional health insurance expenses. In other cases, employers are turning to temporary or part time employees, again to avoid paying outrageous health insurance costs. The result of these higher costs is that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2003 there were 45 million people without insurance, 1.4 million more than the year before and 3.8 million since 2001. This is being attributed to a decrease in the number of people covered by insurance through their employers--down 61 percent in 2004. Disturbingly, the Kaiser study says that only 52 percent of firms with 3 to 9 employees offer health benefits. Indeed, sometimes I wonder how small businesses can provide insurance at all. The fact that so many do is testimony to their recognition of how essential this is to their employees, and their determination to offer this benefit even in the face of constantly skyrocketing costs. Last year's Kaiser report suggests that the greater increase in premiums for traditionally insured plans of 15.6 percent versus self insured plans at 12.4 percent ``may indicate that part of the rise in health care premiums is due to insurers expanding their underwriting gains.'' They also say that one of the factors driving the high rate of premium growth appears to be ``insurers' efforts to emphasize profitability in their pricing.'' What these statements really mean is that insurance companies are getting as much as they can out of their small business customers because they know these customers have no other options. Large employers, unlike small businesses, have competition for their business because they have many employees through whom to spread the risks. This makes them attractive to insurance companies who compete for their business. Large employers also have the option of self insuring under ERISA which is only practical for employers who are large enough to afford the costs. This approach, though, offers significant savings by eliminating the administrative costs of the middle man--the insurance companies. A study by SBA's Office of Advocacy has shown that these plans have administrative costs as much as 30 percent lower. Small businesses from my home state of Maine have made it clear that they have only one choice for their health care. Even when they band together in local purchasing pools, they are unable to attract any other insurance carriers to provide them with less expensive and more flexible options. Right after small businesses tell me how high their rates are they tell me how they have no choices and in some cases are even lucky to have anyone offering them any coverage at all. In response to this health care crisis facing the small business community, I am introducing the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. This bill creates national Association Health Plans which allow small businesses to pool their employees together under the auspices of their bona fide associations to get the same bulk purchasing and administrative efficiencies already enjoyed by large employers and unions with their health care plans. It builds on the success of the ERISA self insurance plans used by large employers and the Taft-Hartley plans available to union employers. These two types of plans currently provide health benefits for 72 million people, more than half of the 130 million total people who get their health insurance through their employer. It is ludicrous that we have a two tiered health insurance system in this country where one group of employers--large ones and those who are union employers--get preferential treatment over those who create over 75 percent of the new jobs. I am at a loss to understand why small businesses should be denied the same advantages that these other employers already have. This is a matter of basic fairness. AHPs will be able to offer less expensive plans, and also greater flexibility because they will be exempt from the myriad state benefit regulations. Associations will be able to design their plans to meet the needs of their members and their employees. By administering one national plan, it will further reduce the administrative costs instead of trying to administer a plan subject to the mandates of each state. Even though the benefit mandates will not be in effect, associations will need to design their plans so that enough members participate in them to attract the necessary employees to make them work. This means that they will naturally provide a full range of benefits similar to what many states currently require. In many cases, the plans offered by large employers and unions, which are also exempt from the state benefit mandates, are the most generous plans available. People will often stay in those jobs specifically to keep their health care coverage. The bill would also provide extensive new protections to ensure that the health care coverage is there when employees need it. Associations sponsoring these plans would need to be established for at least three years for purposes other than providing health insurance--this is intended to prevent the current epidemic of fraud and abuse that is occurring through sham associations who take money from unsuspecting small businesses and then cease to exist when someone files a claim. In addition, self-funded AHPs would be required to have sufficient funds in reserve, specific stop-loss insurances, indemnification insurance, and other funding and certification requirements to make sure the insurance coverage would be available when needed. None of these requirements apply to any of the plans currently regulated by the Department of Labor, either the large employer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), or the union plans under the Taft-Hartley Act. Yet, the opponents of this bill have mis-characterized it in ways that make it sound like this would be the worst thing in the world for small businesses. They have said that this bill would lead to ``cherry picking''--where AHPs would only take young healthy people. There is language in the bill which explicitly states that an association which offers a plan must offer it to all of their members, and a member who participates in the plan must offer the plan to every employee. Violation of these requirements is subject to enforcement by the Department of Labor under ERISA. They have said that the Department of Labor would not be able to handle their responsibilities under this bill. The Department of Labor is already overseeing 275,000 similarly structured plans. We do not hear employees complain about these plans, or that they are failing and leaving subscribers without coverage. The additional plans from AHPs would not add that much of a burden to their operations and the Secretary of Labor has testified before the Small Business Committee that sufficient resources would be available to make sure the Department fulfilled its obligations. Opponents have claimed that AHPs would not be subject to any solvency protections or other insurance regulations. This is flat out not true. The bill specifies detailed solvency protections that self funded AHPs would have to implement which are far beyond anything current self funded large employer plans have to implement. In fact those plans are not required to have any solvency protections. Insurance companies that would provide the coverage for fully insured AHPs would continue to be subject to state solvency requirements, as well as other state protections in the same way as they are now. Opponents of this bill are basically saying that small businesses do not need more options and that they should be satisfied with the few that they have. They want to preserve the status quo which does nothing for small businesses. This bill would create competition in the small group market where there currently is none. If we expect our small employers to provide health insurance to their employees, we must pass AHP legislation to give them the same advantages enjoyed by large employers and union employers. Giving small businesses better and more affordable options for their health care will also have an impact on the larger problem of the uninsured. The latest Census Bureau figures indicate that in 2003 approximately 45 million people had no health insurance. We also know that about 60 percent of these uninsured work for a small business, or are in a family of someone who works for a small business. The CBO has estimated that 600,000 people would go from being uninsured to being insured if AHPs were available. There are other studies that show this number could be more like 4.5 million and possibly as high as 8.5 million. What is clear is that giving small businesses AHPs as an option will mean that more of them who currently do not offer health insurance will be able to provide this benefit to their employees and their families. This bill is supported by a large coalition of small business interests with approximately 12 million employers who represent about 80 million employees. President Bush included AHPs in the State of the Union and has made this part of his agenda for providing more health care options and helping small businesses. During the campaign he called for passage of this bill on almost a daily basis. And he continues to call for its passage. Our Majority Leader has indicated his support for taking up this bill. The House has passed the bill several times with strong bipartisan support and will pass it again this year. Significantly, the Senate Task Force on the Uninsured included AHPs among its recommendation for increasing coverage. The time has come to get this bill through the Senate. We must pass AHPs this session. In the time I have been Chair of the Small Business Committee, I have come to understand even more that the entrepreneurial spirit burns bright throughout our nation. There are millions of people who seek a better life and personal satisfaction through starting and running small businesses. These folks are not looking for a handout, or preferential treatment. They are merely looking to us to recognize the absolutely essential role they play in our economy and to be treated accordingly and fairly. If we want more jobs, and better family lives, we must give small businesses the support they are seeking. While this bill has passed the House with bipartisan support on several occasions, it has not been considered in the Senate. I intend to change that. I will work with Senator Enzi as the new chair of the HELP Committee, Senate Leaders, and others to find ways and develop enhancements to get this bill through the Senate. If there are changes that can be made, I am willing to consider them. I believe we will see movement on this issue this Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring relief and assistance to our nation's small businesses. 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 Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to introduce the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. I am joined in this bipartisan effort by Senators Talent, Bond, Byrd, Dole, McCain, Hutchison, Coleman, Vitter and Martinez. This bill creates Association Health Plans (AHPs), also called Small Business Health Plans, that give small businesses the same market based advantages and leverage that large employers and unions currently enjoy when providing health insurance to their employees. AHPs directly address one of the most critical issues facing small businesses nationwide: the crisis small businesses face trying to provide health insurance for their employees. No other issue has been mentioned so frequently or by so many of the small businesses with whom I have met since I became Chair. While the problem has been growing for years, the outcry has built so that now it is indeed a loud chorus of small businesses desperate for relief and demanding that something be done. Without exception, every small business person who has approached me has asked me to do something about the crushing burden from increased health insurance costs. The anecdotal accounts that I have heard have been confirmed by reports detailing how much health insurance costs are increasing across the board for all employers and especially for small businesses. The Kaiser Family Foundation has reported that health insurance premiums increased between the spring of 2003 and spring of 2004 by 11.2 percent. This is the fourth such year of double digit increases and follows increases of 13.9 percent, 12.9 percent and 10.9 percent. In contrast, overall inflation during the last three years was 2.3 percent, 2.2 percent and 1.6 percent, wage gains for non-supervisory workers were similarly stable at 2.2 percent, 3.1 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. This is an astonishing trend. Not only are the costs for employers increasing, but these are now being passed onto the employees. As a result, the amount of premium employees pay for family coverage has increased almost 64 percent over the past 4 years, from $1,619 to $2,661. As I have heard from many small businesses, increases in insurance costs often mean employees do not get the benefit of salary and wage increases. Employers are rewarding employees with raises and then requiring them to pay more of their health insurance. These employers are disheartened that they are giving a raise with one hand and then turning around and taking it away with the other. The Kaiser report also shows that this year, firms with 3 to 199 workers had premium increases of 9.1 percent and the smallest firms with 3 to 9 workers averaged 12.4 percent increases. So we see that as bad as things have gotten they're worse for the smallest businesses who are the source of as much as 75 percent of our country's new jobs. In my meetings with small businesses, they invariably report increases far greater than even these percentages, generally 30 percent, 40 percent or more. The increase in these costs can not be dismissed as just another cost of doing business and absorbed or passed on to customers, because we know small businesses often have lower profit margins for their goods and services than other businesses. These skyrocketing costs often mean the difference between the business expanding or struggling to survive. The high cost of health insurance can even make the difference in whether a small business creates new jobs. Small businesses have told me that the high cost of providing health care is preventing small businesses from adding more employees because they can not afford the additional health insurance expenses. In other cases, employers are turning to temporary or part time employees, again to avoid paying outrageous health insurance costs. The result of these higher costs is that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2003 there were 45 million people without insurance, 1.4 million more than the year before and 3.8 million since 2001. This is being attributed to a decrease in the number of people covered by insurance through their employers--down 61 percent in 2004. Disturbingly, the Kaiser study says that only 52 percent of firms with 3 to 9 employees offer health benefits. Indeed, sometimes I wonder how small businesses can provide insurance at all. The fact that so many do is testimony to their recognition of how essential this is to their employees, and their determination to offer this benefit even in the face of constantly skyrocketing costs. Last year's Kaiser report suggests that the greater increase in premiums for traditionally insured plans of 15.6 percent versus self insured plans at 12.4 percent ``may indicate that part of the rise in health care premiums is due to insurers expanding their underwriting gains.'' They also say that one of the factors driving the high rate of premium growth appears to be ``insurers' efforts to emphasize profitability in their pricing.'' What these statements really mean is that insurance companies are getting as much as they can out of their small business customers because they know these customers have no other options. Large employers, unlike small businesses, have competition for their business because they have many employees through whom to spread the risks. This makes them attractive to insurance companies who compete for their business. Large employers also have the option of self insuring under ERISA which is only practical for employers who are large enough to afford the costs. This approach, though, offers significant savings by eliminating the administrative costs of the middle man--the insurance companies. A study by SBA's Office of Advocacy has shown that these plans have administrative costs as much as 30 percent lower. Small businesses from my home state of Maine have made it clear that they have only one choice for their health care. Even when they band together in local purchasing pools, they are unable to attract any other insurance carriers to provide them with less expensive and more flexible options. Right after small businesses tell me how high their rates are they tell me how they have no choices and in some cases are even lucky to have anyone offering them any coverage at all. In response to this health care crisis facing the small business community, I am introducing the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. This bill creates national Association Health Plans which allow small businesses to pool their employees together under the auspices of their bona fide associations to get the same bulk purchasing and administrative efficiencies already enjoyed by large employers and unions with their health care plans. It builds on the success of the ERISA self insurance plans used by large employers and the Taft-Hartley plans available to union employers. These two types of plans currently provide health benefits for 72 million people, more than half of the 130 million total people who get their health insurance through their employer. It is ludicrous that we have a two tiered health insurance system in this country where one group of employers--large ones and those who are union employers--get preferential treatment over those who create over 75 percent of the new jobs. I am at a loss to understand why small businesses should be denied the same advantages that these other employers already have. This is a matter of basic fairness. AHPs will be able to offer less expensive plans, and also greater flexibility because they will be exempt from the myriad state benefit regulations. Associations will be able to design their plans to meet the needs of their members and their employees. By administering one national plan, it will further reduce the administrative costs instead of trying to administer a plan subject to the mandates of each state. Even though the benefit mandates will not be in effect, associations will need to design their plans so that enough members participate in them to attract the necessary employees to make them work. This means that they will naturally provide a full range of benefits similar to what many states currently require. In many cases, the plans offered by large employers and unions, which are also exempt from the state benefit mandates, are the most generous plans available. People will often stay in those jobs specifically to keep their health care coverage. The bill would also provide extensive new protections to ensure that the health care coverage is there when employees need it. Associations sponsoring these plans would need to be established for at least three years for purposes other than providing health insurance--this is intended to prevent the current epidemic of fraud and abuse that is occurring through sham associations who take money from unsuspecting small businesses and then cease to exist when someone files a claim. In addition, self-funded AHPs would be required to have sufficient funds in reserve, specific stop-loss insurances, indemnification insurance, and other funding and certification requirements to make sure the insurance coverage would be available when needed. None of these requirements apply to any of the plans currently regulated by the Department of Labor, either the large employer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), or the union plans under the Taft-Hartley Act. Yet, the opponents of this bill have mis-characterized it in ways that make it sound like this would be the worst thing in the world for small businesses. They have said that this bill would lead to ``cherry picking''--where AHPs would only take young healthy people. There is language in the bill which explicitly states that an association which offers a plan must offer it to all of their members, and a member who participates in the plan must offer the plan to every employee. Violation of these requirements is subject to enforcement by the Department of Labor under ERISA. They have said that the Department of Labor would not be able to handle their responsibilities under this bill. The Department of Labor is already overseeing 275,000 similarly structured plans. We do not hear employees complain about these plans, or that they are failing and leaving subscribers without coverage. The additional plans from AHPs would not add that much of a burden to their operations and the Secretary of Labor has testified before the Small Business Committee that sufficient resources would be available to make sure the Department fulfilled its obligations. Opponents have claimed that AHPs would not be subject to any solvency protections or other insurance regulations. This is flat out not true. The bill specifies detailed solvency protections that self funded AHPs would have to implement which are far beyond anything current self funded large employer plans have to implement. In fact those plans are not required to have any solvency protections. Insurance companies that would provide the coverage for fully insured AHPs would continue to be subject to state solvency requirements, as well as other state protections in the same way as they are now. Opponents of this bill are basically saying that small businesses do not need more options and that they should be satisfied with the few that they have. They want to preserve the status quo which does nothing for small businesses. This bill would create competition in the small group market where there currently is none. If we expect our small employers to provide health insurance to their employees, we must pass AHP legislation to give them the same advantages enjoyed by large employers and union employers. Giving small businesses better and more affordable options for their health care will also have an impact on the larger problem of the uninsured. The latest Census Bureau figures indicate that in 2003 approximately 45 million people had no health insurance. We also know that about 60 percent of these uninsured work for a small business, or are in a family of someone who works for a small business. The CBO has estimated that 600,000 people would go from being uninsured to being insured if AHPs were available. There are other studies that show this number could be more like 4.5 million and possibly as high as 8.5 million. What is clear is that giving small businesses AHPs as an option will mean that more of them who currently do not offer health insurance will be able to provide this benefit to their employees and their families. This bill is supported by a large coalition of small business interests with approximately 12 million employers who represent about 80 million employees. President Bush included AHPs in the State of the Union and has made this part of his agenda for providing more health care options and helping small businesses. During the campaign he called for passage of this bill on almost a daily basis. And he continues to call for its passage. Our Majority Leader has indicated his support for taking up this bill. The House has passed the bill several times with strong bipartisan support and will pass it again this year. Significantly, the Senate Task Force on the Uninsured included AHPs among its recommendation for increasing coverage. The time has come to get this bill through the Senate. We must pass AHPs this session. In the time I have been Chair of the Small Business Committee, I have come to understand even more that the entrepreneurial spirit burns bright throughout our nation. There are millions of people who seek a better life and personal satisfaction through starting and running small businesses. These folks are not looking for a handout, or preferential treatment. They are merely looking to us to recognize the absolutely essential role they play in our economy and to be treated accordingly and fairly. If we want more jobs, and better family lives, we must give small businesses the support they are seeking. While this bill has passed the House with bipartisan support on several occasions, it has not been considered in the Senate. I intend to change that. I will work with Senator Enzi as the new chair of the HELP Committee, Senate Leaders, and others to find ways and develop enhancements to get this bill through the Senate. If there are changes that can be made, I am willing to consider them. I believe we will see movement on this issue this Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring relief and assistance to our nation's small businesses. 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 Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will enable our Nation to improve the way we manage our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources. More than three decades ago, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, or CZMA, in response to concerns over growing threats to our Nation's coastal environments and resources. While this act has been instrumental in facilitating better coastal planning and management, the September 2004 Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reminded us that the pressures facing our coastal regions have greatly increased since the CZMA was enacted. America's coastal zone comprises only 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, yet nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal areas. Attracted by economic opportunity as well as beaches and other recreational amenities, more than 3,600 people are moving to this area each year. This relatively small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, including most of our largest cities. At the same time, it provides critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks. The CZMA established a unique State-Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning, and any amendments to this act must uphold and strengthen this arrangement. Under the authorities in the CZMA, coastal States can elect to participate in a voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The 34 participating States and territories create individualized coastal zone management plans, taking their State's specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help implement their plans. This systems respects states' rights while empowering them to better identify and meet their environmental, social, and economic goals for their coastal areas. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system. Even though our coastal States and territories have benefitted from this vital CZMA program, our coastal areas continue to face increasing demands to expand working waterfronts as well as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution. These persistent threats have outpaced the ability of many States to keep up with coastal zone conservation. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authorities, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 would encourage them to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. The coastal community initiative would provide participating States with the funding and flexibility necessary to deal with a broad array of specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The State of Maine, like many coastal States, is working to reduce nonpoint source pollution programs, and its efforts have led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine needs to do more and is looking forward to this new opportunity. The Coastal Community Program authorized in this bill would also aide States in developing and implementing creative, community-based initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It would increase Federal and State support of local grassroots programs that target coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal resources and activities. The bill I offer today would reauthorize the CZMA and make a number of improvements to strengthen our Nation's coastal management system. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $137.5 million for fiscal year 2006 and increases the authorization levels up to $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. This increase in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential. Within these authorized funding levels, this bill would increase authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $18 million in fiscal year 2006 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2010. This system is a network of reserves around the country that support coastal science, research, education and conservation, and they are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Additional authorizations, including funds to support construction at designated reserve sites, will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. In this bill, we have tried to rectify a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program. The funding for this program is based on administrative grants, under section 306 of the CZMA, in which the amount of funding for each State is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a million a $2 million cap per State on administrative grants in an attempt to treat all participating States equally. Even while overall program funding has increased in recent years, this arbitrary cap has remained in place, and by fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached it. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. Despite appropriators' desire for equal treatment, it is simply not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million cap, despite overall program funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, progress in some of the larger States--with some of the most pressing coastal management problems--has stagnated. This bill contains new language that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases in annual administrative grant funding for each State. It further 2 requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I must thank my former colleague, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort and cooperation in helping us develop this new grant funding allocation language. His leadership and commitment to all ocean and coastal conservation matters continues to guide our efforts today. The State-Federal Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping States achieve their coastal area management goals, and having clean, safe, and productive coastlines ultimately serves the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I am pleased to introduce this legislation to provide our coastal States with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, a bill that would forever change our understanding of the marine environment. As our Nation saw with the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami only weeks ago, the oceans are alive and ever-changing. While our Nation's coast escaped the direct reach of this recent tragedy, it reminds us that those who live near or along our Nation's 95,000-plus miles of shoreline need to be able to monitor a range of ocean conditions and quickly assess ocean-based threats, including tsunamis, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, and pollution. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil these needs for ocean and coastal observation and warning systems surrounding the United States. This bi-partisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to establish and maintain an integrated network of ocean observing and communication systems around our Nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management as well as maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. As Chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and as a representative of a state with more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, I want to ensure that the citizens of Maine, and all coastal states, have the tools they need to monitor and assess what is happening off their shores. The State of Maine has a strong and proud history rooted in our connection to the sea, as do other coastal states, and our coastal communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources, coastal habitats, tourist destinations, safe harbors, and other essential services connected to the sea. The people of this country's livelihoods are directly linked to how well we understand and adapt to changing ocean conditions. Our ability to understand ocean dynamics took a great leap forward in 2001, when marine scientists and educators launched an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, to start gathering a range of ocean data on a large regional scale. This prototype system, which started with ten observation buoys, has transformed how we observe and track ocean conditions over time. The GoMOOS system takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the public via the GoMOOS Web site. The unprecedented geographical range and frequency of measurements revolutionized our knowledge about the Gulf of Maine, and GoMOOS continues to provide a tremendous public service for New England. Of course, the need to access this type of ocean information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems are planned or developed in other coastal regions, many in conjunction with NOAA, universities, and State agencies. Data from these independent regional systems, however, are often incompatible with data from other regions, making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a result, there is a possibility that these systems would be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation. The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005 seeks to rectify this situation by integrating ocean and coastal observation efforts in cooperation with NOAA. This Act would encourage further development of the regional systems, enable their data to be linked through a national network, provide information that anyone could access, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to have general oversight for research and development of this national undertaking. This Council would establish an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate operational activities and budgets, and NOAA would be the lead Federal agency charged with ensuring that this national network of regional observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development, effectively integrates and utilizes ocean data for the benefit of the American public. As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses of this system are nearly unlimited. For example, fisheries scientists and managers can use ocean data to better predict ocean productivity and use this information to facilitate ecosystem management. Fishermen, sailors, shippers, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, and other seafarers can better monitor sea conditions to more safely navigate rough seas. Ocean scientists and regulators can better predict and respond to marine pollution, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, or other hazardous conditions and issue prompt alerts to potentially vulnerable communities. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands to benefit from this integrated system. I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Inouye, for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities-- they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American ocean-dependent public. 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 Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005, a bill that would forever change our understanding of the marine environment. As our Nation saw with the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami only weeks ago, the oceans are alive and ever-changing. While our Nation's coast escaped the direct reach of this recent tragedy, it reminds us that those who live near or along our Nation's 95,000-plus miles of shoreline need to be able to monitor a range of ocean conditions and quickly assess ocean-based threats, including tsunamis, hurricanes, harmful algal blooms, and pollution. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil these needs for ocean and coastal observation and warning systems surrounding the United States. This bi-partisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to establish and maintain an integrated network of ocean observing and communication systems around our Nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management as well as maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. As Chair of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and as a representative of a state with more than 5,000 miles of shoreline, I want to ensure that the citizens of Maine, and all coastal states, have the tools they need to monitor and assess what is happening off their shores. The State of Maine has a strong and proud history rooted in our connection to the sea, as do other coastal states, and our coastal communities are highly dependent on the fisheries resources, coastal habitats, tourist destinations, safe harbors, and other essential services connected to the sea. The people of this country's livelihoods are directly linked to how well we understand and adapt to changing ocean conditions. Our ability to understand ocean dynamics took a great leap forward in 2001, when marine scientists and educators launched an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, to start gathering a range of ocean data on a large regional scale. This prototype system, which started with ten observation buoys, has transformed how we observe and track ocean conditions over time. The GoMOOS system takes ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the public via the GoMOOS Web site. The unprecedented geographical range and frequency of measurements revolutionized our knowledge about the Gulf of Maine, and GoMOOS continues to provide a tremendous public service for New England. Of course, the need to access this type of ocean information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. Similar observing systems are planned or developed in other coastal regions, many in conjunction with NOAA, universities, and State agencies. Data from these independent regional systems, however, are often incompatible with data from other regions, making it difficult to compile, manage, process, and communicate data across networks. As a result, there is a possibility that these systems would be unable to link their data and develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation. The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2005 seeks to rectify this situation by integrating ocean and coastal observation efforts in cooperation with NOAA. This Act would encourage further development of the regional systems, enable their data to be linked through a national network, provide information that anyone could access, and facilitate timely public warnings of hazardous ocean conditions. It would authorize the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to have general oversight for research and development of this national undertaking. This Council would establish an interagency program office that would plan and coordinate operational activities and budgets, and NOAA would be the lead Federal agency charged with ensuring that this national network of regional observation associations, such as GoMOOS and others under development, effectively integrates and utilizes ocean data for the benefit of the American public. As the U.S. Ocean Commission made clear in its final report issued in September 2004, ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce, and the potential uses of this system are nearly unlimited. For example, fisheries scientists and managers can use ocean data to better predict ocean productivity and use this information to facilitate ecosystem management. Fishermen, sailors, shippers, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, and other seafarers can better monitor sea conditions to more safely navigate rough seas. Ocean scientists and regulators can better predict and respond to marine pollution, harmful algal bloom outbreaks, or other hazardous conditions and issue prompt alerts to potentially vulnerable communities. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands to benefit from this integrated system. I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Kerry, Stevens, and Inouye, for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities-- they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American ocean-dependent public. 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 Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am pleased to have worked with my cosponsor, Senator Kerry, in developing this bill, which will enable our Nation to improve the way we manage our valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal resources. More than three decades ago, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, or CZMA, in response to concerns over growing threats to our Nation's coastal environments and resources. While this act has been instrumental in facilitating better coastal planning and management, the September 2004 Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reminded us that the pressures facing our coastal regions have greatly increased since the CZMA was enacted. America's coastal zone comprises only 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, yet nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal areas. Attracted by economic opportunity as well as beaches and other recreational amenities, more than 3,600 people are moving to this area each year. This relatively small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, including most of our largest cities. At the same time, it provides critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals, ranging from rare microscopic organisms to commercially valuable fish stocks. The CZMA established a unique State-Federal framework for facilitating sound coastal planning, and any amendments to this act must uphold and strengthen this arrangement. Under the authorities in the CZMA, coastal States can elect to participate in a voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The 34 participating States and territories create individualized coastal zone management plans, taking their State's specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help implement their plans. This systems respects states' rights while empowering them to better identify and meet their environmental, social, and economic goals for their coastal areas. As a result of this program's success, more than 99.9 percent of the United States 95,376 shoreline miles are managed under this system. Even though our coastal States and territories have benefitted from this vital CZMA program, our coastal areas continue to face increasing demands to expand working waterfronts as well as increasing rates of nonpoint source water pollution. These persistent threats have outpaced the ability of many States to keep up with coastal zone conservation. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authorities, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 would encourage them to take additional voluntary steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. The coastal community initiative would provide participating States with the funding and flexibility necessary to deal with a broad array of specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The State of Maine, like many coastal States, is working to reduce nonpoint source pollution programs, and its efforts have led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine needs to do more and is looking forward to this new opportunity. The Coastal Community Program authorized in this bill would also aide States in developing and implementing creative, community-based initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It would increase Federal and State support of local grassroots programs that target coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal resources and activities. The bill I offer today would reauthorize the CZMA and make a number of improvements to strengthen our Nation's coastal management system. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, enabling States to better achieve their coastal management goals. The bill authorizes $137.5 million for fiscal year 2006 and increases the authorization levels up to $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2010. This increase in funding would enable the States' coastal programs to achieve their full potential. Within these authorized funding levels, this bill would increase authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System to $18 million in fiscal year 2006 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2010. This system is a network of reserves around the country that support coastal science, research, education and conservation, and they are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Additional authorizations, including funds to support construction at designated reserve sites, will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. In this bill, we have tried to rectify a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program. The funding for this program is based on administrative grants, under section 306 of the CZMA, in which the amount of funding for each State is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a million a $2 million cap per State on administrative grants in an attempt to treat all participating States equally. Even while overall program funding has increased in recent years, this arbitrary cap has remained in place, and by fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached it. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. Despite appropriators' desire for equal treatment, it is simply not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million cap, despite overall program funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, progress in some of the larger States--with some of the most pressing coastal management problems--has stagnated. This bill contains new language that would direct the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases in annual administrative grant funding for each State. It further 2 requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I must thank my former colleague, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort and cooperation in helping us develop this new grant funding allocation language. His leadership and commitment to all ocean and coastal conservation matters continues to guide our efforts today. The State-Federal Coastal Zone Management Program has a long record of helping States achieve their coastal area management goals, and having clean, safe, and productive coastlines ultimately serves the best interest of our Nation. This program enjoys widespread support among coastal States, as demonstrated by the many Commerce Committee members who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I am pleased to introduce this legislation to provide our coastal States with the funding and management frameworks necessary to meet the ever-increasing conservation and development challenges facing our coastal communities, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2005 be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid and the Medically Underserved Act of 2005, which Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman are introducing today. 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, our 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 at an even faster rate. As Congress begins to consider the administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, I believe we must take a balanced approach that is both fiscally responsible and reflects our long-standing commitments to provide health care for many of the low-income and uninsured through the Medicaid program. Although we face growing budget deficits and ever tightening Federal budgets, the Federal Government cannot simply abandon its responsibility to help states provide health care access to our most vulnerable citizens. Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets, according to the most recent survey of the National Governors Association. Total Medicaid spending nationwide now averages 22 percent of State budgets, while State spending on all healthcare functions is approximately 31 percent. However, although its costs are increasing, the annual growth in Medicaid spending on a per capita basis is growing more slowly, at 4.5 percent a year, than the private sector where health insurance premiums have increased an average of 12.5 percent a year for the last 3 years. 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. In fact, the Chairman of the National Governors Association, Governor Warner of Virginia, and the Vice Chairman, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, recently warned Congress that if Federal spending for Medicaid were capped and the number of Medicaid recipients increased sharply, States would face dire fiscal consequences. According to the Governors, total costs for State Medicaid programs are growing at an annual rate of 12 percent, and total Medicaid expenditures now exceed that of Medicare, due primarily to factors beyond States' control, especially the costs of long-term care: Medicaid now accounts for 50 percent of all State long-term care spending and pays for the care of 70 percent of those in nursing homes. At this time, therefore, it is crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal funding for Medicaid, which has worked so well since it began providing care for some of our most vulnerable populations 40 years ago. We must proceed cautiously before making any significant changes in the program, and the Medicaid Commission established by this bill will ensure that necessary deliberative approach. The concept of a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and recommend possible changes is similar to the commission which Congress established in the late 1990s, the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. That commission examined various aspects of the Medicare program to determine areas that should be modernized and later recommended a number of changes, including a prescription drug benefit. Those recommendations initiated the process of congressional debate and consideration of reforming the Medicare program, culminating in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which passed in 2003 and, among other reforms, included the new prescription drug benefit for seniors which will take effect next year. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will have a major impact on Medicaid since it will shift Federal expenditures for drug benefits currently provided by Medicaid for the ``dual eligible'' population-- those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare--to Medicare. However, this will not lift most of the financial responsibility and burden of prescription drug costs from the States. Recent estimates by the National Governors Association show that currently 42 percent of all Medicaid dollars are spent on ``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries, although they comprise only a small percentage of Medicaid cases, and they are covered by Medicare for other services. The new prescription drug program includes a provision known as the ``claw-back'' which will require States to remit funds to the Federal Government, based on their inflation-adjusted 2003 per person Medicaid expenditures for prescription drugs for these beneficiaries. Although the percentage share of drug costs that States must pay for the dual eligibles will decline over time, from 90 percent to 75 percent, States will continue to pay the lion's share of dual eligibles' prescription drug costs. Many States are just now recognizing this fact and are looking for ways to accommodate these ongoing costs. Unanswered questions like these remain concerning the ultimate impact of the Medicare drug program on State budgets and Medicaid programs. One of the primary duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to review and make recommendations on the interaction of Medicaid with Medicare and other Federal health programs. Moreover, the formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of a State's expenditures for Medicaid each year, has also contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. However, the formula looks back 3 years, to points in time that are not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation. In fiscal year 2003, for example, the FMAP for that year was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FMAP for FY 2003 was determined on the basis of State per capita income over the 3-year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now. We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. But that fiscal relief has sunset. One of the duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions. The fact is, Medicaid and Medicare have complex responsibilities, financing, and interrelationships and that is why a Medicaid Commission is vital for the future state budgets and the Medicaid program as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain and improve this critical health care safety net for our most vulnerable Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid and the Medically Underserved Act of 2005, which Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman are introducing today. 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, our 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 at an even faster rate. As Congress begins to consider the administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, I believe we must take a balanced approach that is both fiscally responsible and reflects our long-standing commitments to provide health care for many of the low-income and uninsured through the Medicaid program. Although we face growing budget deficits and ever tightening Federal budgets, the Federal Government cannot simply abandon its responsibility to help states provide health care access to our most vulnerable citizens. Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets, according to the most recent survey of the National Governors Association. Total Medicaid spending nationwide now averages 22 percent of State budgets, while State spending on all healthcare functions is approximately 31 percent. However, although its costs are increasing, the annual growth in Medicaid spending on a per capita basis is growing more slowly, at 4.5 percent a year, than the private sector where health insurance premiums have increased an average of 12.5 percent a year for the last 3 years. 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. In fact, the Chairman of the National Governors Association, Governor Warner of Virginia, and the Vice Chairman, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, recently warned Congress that if Federal spending for Medicaid were capped and the number of Medicaid recipients increased sharply, States would face dire fiscal consequences. According to the Governors, total costs for State Medicaid programs are growing at an annual rate of 12 percent, and total Medicaid expenditures now exceed that of Medicare, due primarily to factors beyond States' control, especially the costs of long-term care: Medicaid now accounts for 50 percent of all State long-term care spending and pays for the care of 70 percent of those in nursing homes. At this time, therefore, it is crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal funding for Medicaid, which has worked so well since it began providing care for some of our most vulnerable populations 40 years ago. We must proceed cautiously before making any significant changes in the program, and the Medicaid Commission established by this bill will ensure that necessary deliberative approach. The concept of a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and recommend possible changes is similar to the commission which Congress established in the late 1990s, the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. That commission examined various aspects of the Medicare program to determine areas that should be modernized and later recommended a number of changes, including a prescription drug benefit. Those recommendations initiated the process of congressional debate and consideration of reforming the Medicare program, culminating in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which passed in 2003 and, among other reforms, included the new prescription drug benefit for seniors which will take effect next year. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will have a major impact on Medicaid since it will shift Federal expenditures for drug benefits currently provided by Medicaid for the ``dual eligible'' population-- those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare--to Medicare. However, this will not lift most of the financial responsibility and burden of prescription drug costs from the States. Recent estimates by the National Governors Association show that currently 42 percent of all Medicaid dollars are spent on ``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries, although they comprise only a small percentage of Medicaid cases, and they are covered by Medicare for other services. The new prescription drug program includes a provision known as the ``claw-back'' which will require States to remit funds to the Federal Government, based on their inflation-adjusted 2003 per person Medicaid expenditures for prescription drugs for these beneficiaries. Although the percentage share of drug costs that States must pay for the dual eligibles will decline over time, from 90 percent to 75 percent, States will continue to pay the lion's share of dual eligibles' prescription drug costs. Many States are just now recognizing this fact and are looking for ways to accommodate these ongoing costs. Unanswered questions like these remain concerning the ultimate impact of the Medicare drug program on State budgets and Medicaid programs. One of the primary duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to review and make recommendations on the interaction of Medicaid with Medicare and other Federal health programs. Moreover, the formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of a State's expenditures for Medicaid each year, has also contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. However, the formula looks back 3 years, to points in time that are not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation. In fiscal year 2003, for example, the FMAP for that year was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FMAP for FY 2003 was determined on the basis of State per capita income over the 3-year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now. We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. But that fiscal relief has sunset. One of the duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions. The fact is, Medicaid and Medicare have complex responsibilities, financing, and interrelationships and that is why a Medicaid Commission is vital for the future state budgets and the Medicaid program as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain and improve this critical health care safety net for our most vulnerable Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on January 26, 2005, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously adopted its rules for the 109th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit those rules to be printed in the Record. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship's rules printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to extend my congratulations to the American Medical Women's Association, AMWA, on the occasion of its 90th Birthday Year Celebration. Throughout this century, AMWA, which is known as the Vision and Voice of Women in Medicine, has been determined in its efforts to advance women in the medical profession and to promote women's health. This leading multidisciplinary association of women in medicine in our country has encouraged and honored excellence in the fields of medicine, health care and science through a wide array of scholarships, grants, and awards, as well as diverse educational programs for physicians, medical students and the general public. Over these nine decades, AMWA has supported numerous charitable programs, particularly focusing on the needs of disadvantaged women and their families. For 75 years, AMWA's American Women's Hospitals Service clinics in the U.S. and abroad have provided desperately needed care to the medically underserved. In addition, hundreds of medical students and residents have received remarkable healthcare training in these and other remote clinics worldwide through AMWA's sponsorship. AMWA's advocacy on behalf of women's health and research has made AMWA a leading voice for the care of women and their children. As someone who has been committed to expanding opportunities for women and enhancing women's health, I am pleased to have this opportunity to applaud the accomplishments of this outstanding organization and to celebrate with them the history and future of American Medical Women's Association.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I broke new ground together when we introduced the first bipartisan Medicare Prescription drug bill known as SPICE back in 1999. And after Congress passed the historic Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Senator Wyden and I authored legislation aimed at ensuring long term value of the drug benefit to seniors. Today we are joined again by Senator Feinstein, who has been committed with us to forging a bipartisan effort to do what we must today--to move beyond offering a benefit and ensure that we meet our obligation to address affordability. When we consider both a recent ten year cost estimate of over $534 billion for the prescription drug benefit, and drug price increases which have rapidly outpaced inflation and earnings, we could see the benefit to seniors depreciated--and the cost to the Federal Government increased. So today we introduce The Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005, MEND, today to manage costs, and assure seniors will receive better value for their dollar. This bill provides both better consumer information to help beneficiaries and the negotiation power to assure that the power of millions of seniors will result in competitive pricing. That is why two of our colleagues--Senators McCain and Feingold--have now joined us in this effort. Ours is a simple approach informed by a ``healthy dosage'' of common sense. It simply makes no sense to cut off the ability of the HHS Secretary--the individual who is responsible for the success of this benefit--from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. That's why our legislation repeals the ``noninterference provision'' of the prescription drug bill and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in negotiations on drug prices. Last month when Secretary Thompson announced his departure from HHS, he described several issues of critical concern--one of these was that he had been barred from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. He noted, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate''. And for good reason! The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this negotiation authority can help us realize savings, particularly for drugs that lack significant competition. When Senator Gregg recently queried Secretary Leavitt about keeping the cost of the Part D program within the original $400 billion budget, and the Secretary asserted that ``It's my practice as a manager to act within my budget''. That will require competition, so I ask why wouldn't we employ negotiation to do what it does best--drive costs down? I asked Secretary Leavitt about negotiation at his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee and he told me, ``I know little about negotiation authority, but there are times when the national government should play a role''. Well, that time is now. Senator Wyden and I have received our first report on drug price trends from the GAO, and the news isn't good. Since 2000, the increase in prescription drug prices has increase at two to three times the rate of inflation. And worse, we found the rate spiked in 2002, just as we were working to create a prescription drug benefit. It's no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office projects an annual increase of about 8.5 percent in costs, most of which can be attributed to the rise in prices. But we can address this problem, and avoid depreciating the value of this long sought benefit. To do so you must do more than simply end the prohibition on the Secretary negotiating, you must do more than simply granting permissive authority, you must actually ensure that when needed, the Secretary will negotiate. So our legislation will not only empower the HHS Secretary to negotiate but, under two circumstances, requires it. For those beneficiaries who do not have access to two prescription drug plans, the Secretary steps in with a fallback plan, and this plan must be competitive--so the Secretary must assure that he negotiates on behalf of those beneficiaries. In addition, the Secretary must be responsive to the needs of the plan providers. When a manufacturer simply is not inclined to negotiate--as may occur when competition for a drug is lacking--then the Secretary must respond when plans request his assistance in negotiations. Some will say this will compel excessive involvement by the Secretary, but the truth is quite to the contrary. Plans will compete to gain advantage, and it is when they are stymied and cannot achieve reasonable discounts that they will call upon the Secretary. CBO foresaw one such situation--when a drug lacks significant competition-- and those are among our most expensive drugs! The buying power of millions of seniors should produce substantial savings, but at the same time, competitive plans won't help if seniors cannot identify which plan is right for them. Senator Wyden and I believe we must arm beneficiaries with information. Our bill requires GAO to track not only the price of drugs under the Medicare program, but calls for that price to be compared to the price negotiated by the VA, DOD and other privately run systems. We will have a measure of how well the seniors are being served. This bill will also help seniors determine which Medicare plan offers the most savings by requiring that beginning in 2007 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine the savings received from each plan by the average Medicare beneficiary, using a market basket of commonly-used drugs. This will allow seniors to make the proverbial ``apples to apples'' comparison. This information will be shared with all beneficiaries during the annual enrollment period each fall, and will be a great help as a starting point for seniors to compare plans. Our legislation will make annual the report Senator Wyden and I first requested following passage of the prescription drug bill in 2003. We asked the GAO to review changes in drug prices from 2000 through 2003, focusing on the drugs most likely to be used by seniors, and the results are in: Prescription drug prices have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation. Finally, many advocates and seniors alike have raised questions about the restriction of Medigap policies under the new Part D benefit. The prohibition of the sale of new Medigap policies which include prescription drug coverage has prompted the need for a re-examination of the role of Medigap plans. So we have directed the Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies and to evaluate the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. It is an important step in looking at the future of Medigap plans. With this report in hand, we will have the information necessary to make wise adjustments. Some say we don't need to act now. But we have seen drug price increases which are driving costs upwards--contributing to the estimated 8.5 percent annual increases in costs projected by CBO. We simply cannot wait until 2006 to address the issue of drug prices. This bill provides beneficiaries and our government with the information and tools necessary to achieve access to low-cost prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill so that we can pass it quickly.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005, legislation which will address the critical, comprehensive and integrated research needed for abrupt climate change. In the 108th, this legislation was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Its merits are just as pressing, if not more critical, for the 109th Congress as the legislation calls for developing and coordinating a research program over 6 years aimed at understanding, assessing, and predicting both human-induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change. The abrupt climate change research issue is one that the Maine Senate delegation has been working on for the past 3\1/2\ years, the genesis of which goes back to a Climate Change Conference in Maine in October 2001, which was attended by a wide array of stakeholders in the State who have been active in climate change issues for a number of years. I believe we all ought to be concerned by the picture scientific research is painting, which points to the reality and potential impact of abrupt shifts in climate. The December 2001 National Academy of Sciences report documented a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests our global climate can swing abruptly, not gradually over time. Moreover, such sudden jumps, and I quote from the Academies' report, ``are not only possible but likely in the future.'' Rather than dismiss this, as some have, as the ``science de jour'' I prefer to take this as a serious warning, based on the best available evidence and analysis. The risk of complacency is to gamble immense environmental and societal consequences. That's why the NAS report urged that a new research program be initiated to examine the potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. And that's also why, back in May of 2002, when NOAA's Admiral Lautenbacher was before the Commerce Committee testifying on NOAA's FY 2003 Budget, I raised the need for abrupt climate change studies, and the Admiral agreed this is a pressing priority. Since the introduction of the research bill in the 108th Congress, NOAA, in a January 15, 2004 report, stated that calendar year 2003 tied 2002 as the 2nd warmest year on record. Mr. President, as co-chair of the independent International Climate Change Taskforce, I was pleased to disseminate to my colleagues the recently published Taskforce report, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' The ICCT includes leaders from public service, science, business and civil society, from both developed and developing countries. Our goal was to find common ground through recommendations that could be helpful to all governments and policymakers worldwide for developing solutions to address climate change. Indeed, our first recommendation calls for a long-term objective to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial level by 2100. This target would limit the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change if all countries take various actions. I will ask unanimous consent to submit the ICCT's ten recommendations for the Record. In the upcoming weeks and months, I will be introducing legislation that reflects these public policy recommendations. The temperature goal is crucial to the debate on abrupt climate change because, if the earth goes beyond the 2 degree C level, scientists have suggested that risks to both ecosystems and humans increase significantly. As the risks of accelerated or--as our report stated--``runaway'' climate change increases, a ``tipping point'' could be reached that would include the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, leading to the rise of sea levels. On this score, abrupt and paleoclimate research can greatly enhance the evolving body of scientific evidence, and that is why Senator Lautenberg and I spearheaded the effort last year to restore the FY2005 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, research programs that will enable us to examine past climate change patterns. This information will guide the development of future models to assist both scientists and policymakers to improve their understanding of climate change through, for instance, the CORC-ARCHES program and paleo- climate research. The University of Maine, under the direction of Dr. George Denton, has been part of the decades-long consortium that has been studying deep ocean currents in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica, and ice core samples from northern latitudes, which is helping scientists command a greater understanding of abrupt climate change. There have also been other, newer scientific reports that should give us great pause. Among those reports, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment states, ``Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.'' There is scientific observational evidence that indicates that regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, are already affecting a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the world. Off the coast of Canada lies a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has existed on the coast for 3,000 years, but it is now disintegrating. That melting has been accelerating over the past 2 years. In addition, coral reefs, an irreplaceable marine resource around the world, are under tremendous stress as coral bleaching is induced by high water temperatures. Indeed, there are reports of a massive region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life across the entire Caribbean Basin. As we turn to the future, we should harbor no illusions that we are looking at a timetable measured in epochs. We are talking about tens of thousands of years. To the contrary, observed changes tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could vanish in 15 years, the glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible may disappear in another 10 years, and in Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5 and one half degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting permafrost and dying forests. So my question is, what are we waiting for? Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave to future generations and the next millennium? Why not apply now the lessons of the past and present? Indeed, if ``past is prologue,'' and I believe it is, this bill will improve our understanding of climate change by calling for research to bolster existing, global records of past abrupt climate change, through the study of ice cores, for instance. In this manner we can improve scientific understanding of the mechanisms of abrupt climate change, and incorporate this knowledge into current scientific models. Even for those who question prevailing scientific opinion on the climate change issue, this bill should hold the appeal of increasing our stock of knowledge, wherever it may lead. In the final analysis, we need to carry out research that will allow us to gauge climate change secrets of the past, so we in turn might develop future models that will assist both scientists and policymakers in understanding climate change. The reality is, there is no doubt our global climate has changed in the past. There should similarly be no question that it would be beneficial to understand the manner in which that change has occurred and why, and so I urge my colleague's support for this legislation, and will work for its passage out of the Commerce Committee and to the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Summary of Main Recommendations be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Rockefeller and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senators Stevens and Inouye, to introduce legislation to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or ``USF,'' the institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone itself, and this bill today marks one key step in ensuring that this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century. The legislation introduced today pertains specifically to the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. This bill is very similar to S. 2994, a Universal Service bill that I introduced during the last session of Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily-imposed accounting rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem. According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more-or-less monthly basis, of monies derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent. After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last summer, the entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for one year until a permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I decided to pursue a one-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides that permanent solution: a permanent exemption from the Anti- Deficiency Act. Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other federal programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF has a funding mechanism different from most federal programs. The USF functioned very well for many years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well-- and also a spike in the USF surcharge on consumers' telephone bills. Finally, I want to ensure my colleagues that a permanent exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act poses no risk of increased fraud or abuse in the E-Rate Program or in Universal Service as a whole. Some well- publicized abuses of E-Rate did in fact occur, and I will fully support efforts to stamp out such government waste. But the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely no connection between the Anti-Deficiency Act land the ability of the Inspector General to effectively monitor the program to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse. As such, government waste cannot be used as a valid reason for opposing this bill. Last fall we undertook a bipartisan effort among Members on the committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. I am grateful of the continuing bipartisan support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as of Senator Rockefeller, and it is my hope that we can proceed in similar fashion to make this exemption permanent.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Wyden and I broke new ground together when we introduced the first bipartisan Medicare Prescription drug bill known as SPICE back in 1999. And after Congress passed the historic Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Senator Wyden and I authored legislation aimed at ensuring long term value of the drug benefit to seniors. Today we are joined again by Senator Feinstein, who has been committed with us to forging a bipartisan effort to do what we must today--to move beyond offering a benefit and ensure that we meet our obligation to address affordability. When we consider both a recent ten year cost estimate of over $534 billion for the prescription drug benefit, and drug price increases which have rapidly outpaced inflation and earnings, we could see the benefit to seniors depreciated--and the cost to the Federal Government increased. So today we introduce The Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2005, MEND, today to manage costs, and assure seniors will receive better value for their dollar. This bill provides both better consumer information to help beneficiaries and the negotiation power to assure that the power of millions of seniors will result in competitive pricing. That is why two of our colleagues--Senators McCain and Feingold--have now joined us in this effort. Ours is a simple approach informed by a ``healthy dosage'' of common sense. It simply makes no sense to cut off the ability of the HHS Secretary--the individual who is responsible for the success of this benefit--from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. That's why our legislation repeals the ``noninterference provision'' of the prescription drug bill and authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in negotiations on drug prices. Last month when Secretary Thompson announced his departure from HHS, he described several issues of critical concern--one of these was that he had been barred from negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries. He noted, ``I would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate''. And for good reason! The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this negotiation authority can help us realize savings, particularly for drugs that lack significant competition. When Senator Gregg recently queried Secretary Leavitt about keeping the cost of the Part D program within the original $400 billion budget, and the Secretary asserted that ``It's my practice as a manager to act within my budget''. That will require competition, so I ask why wouldn't we employ negotiation to do what it does best--drive costs down? I asked Secretary Leavitt about negotiation at his confirmation hearing in the Finance Committee and he told me, ``I know little about negotiation authority, but there are times when the national government should play a role''. Well, that time is now. Senator Wyden and I have received our first report on drug price trends from the GAO, and the news isn't good. Since 2000, the increase in prescription drug prices has increase at two to three times the rate of inflation. And worse, we found the rate spiked in 2002, just as we were working to create a prescription drug benefit. It's no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office projects an annual increase of about 8.5 percent in costs, most of which can be attributed to the rise in prices. But we can address this problem, and avoid depreciating the value of this long sought benefit. To do so you must do more than simply end the prohibition on the Secretary negotiating, you must do more than simply granting permissive authority, you must actually ensure that when needed, the Secretary will negotiate. So our legislation will not only empower the HHS Secretary to negotiate but, under two circumstances, requires it. For those beneficiaries who do not have access to two prescription drug plans, the Secretary steps in with a fallback plan, and this plan must be competitive--so the Secretary must assure that he negotiates on behalf of those beneficiaries. In addition, the Secretary must be responsive to the needs of the plan providers. When a manufacturer simply is not inclined to negotiate--as may occur when competition for a drug is lacking--then the Secretary must respond when plans request his assistance in negotiations. Some will say this will compel excessive involvement by the Secretary, but the truth is quite to the contrary. Plans will compete to gain advantage, and it is when they are stymied and cannot achieve reasonable discounts that they will call upon the Secretary. CBO foresaw one such situation--when a drug lacks significant competition-- and those are among our most expensive drugs! The buying power of millions of seniors should produce substantial savings, but at the same time, competitive plans won't help if seniors cannot identify which plan is right for them. Senator Wyden and I believe we must arm beneficiaries with information. Our bill requires GAO to track not only the price of drugs under the Medicare program, but calls for that price to be compared to the price negotiated by the VA, DOD and other privately run systems. We will have a measure of how well the seniors are being served. This bill will also help seniors determine which Medicare plan offers the most savings by requiring that beginning in 2007 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine the savings received from each plan by the average Medicare beneficiary, using a market basket of commonly-used drugs. This will allow seniors to make the proverbial ``apples to apples'' comparison. This information will be shared with all beneficiaries during the annual enrollment period each fall, and will be a great help as a starting point for seniors to compare plans. Our legislation will make annual the report Senator Wyden and I first requested following passage of the prescription drug bill in 2003. We asked the GAO to review changes in drug prices from 2000 through 2003, focusing on the drugs most likely to be used by seniors, and the results are in: Prescription drug prices have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation. Finally, many advocates and seniors alike have raised questions about the restriction of Medigap policies under the new Part D benefit. The prohibition of the sale of new Medigap policies which include prescription drug coverage has prompted the need for a re-examination of the role of Medigap plans. So we have directed the Secretary to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to conduct a review of the changes to the Medigap policies and to evaluate the impact on Medicare beneficiaries. It is an important step in looking at the future of Medigap plans. With this report in hand, we will have the information necessary to make wise adjustments. Some say we don't need to act now. But we have seen drug price increases which are driving costs upwards--contributing to the estimated 8.5 percent annual increases in costs projected by CBO. We simply cannot wait until 2006 to address the issue of drug prices. This bill provides beneficiaries and our government with the information and tools necessary to achieve access to low-cost prescription drugs. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill so that we can pass it quickly.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Rockefeller and the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senators Stevens and Inouye, to introduce legislation to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or ``USF,'' the institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone itself, and this bill today marks one key step in ensuring that this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century. The legislation introduced today pertains specifically to the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. This bill is very similar to S. 2994, a Universal Service bill that I introduced during the last session of Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily-imposed accounting rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem. According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more-or-less monthly basis, of monies derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent. After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last summer, the entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for one year until a permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I decided to pursue a one-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides that permanent solution: a permanent exemption from the Anti- Deficiency Act. Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other federal programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF has a funding mechanism different from most federal programs. The USF functioned very well for many years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well-- and also a spike in the USF surcharge on consumers' telephone bills. Finally, I want to ensure my colleagues that a permanent exemption from the Anti-Deficiency Act poses no risk of increased fraud or abuse in the E-Rate Program or in Universal Service as a whole. Some well- publicized abuses of E-Rate did in fact occur, and I will fully support efforts to stamp out such government waste. But the Federal Communications Commission has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely no connection between the Anti-Deficiency Act land the ability of the Inspector General to effectively monitor the program to stamp out waste, fraud, and abuse. As such, government waste cannot be used as a valid reason for opposing this bill. Last fall we undertook a bipartisan effort among Members on the committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. I am grateful of the continuing bipartisan support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as of Senator Rockefeller, and it is my hope that we can proceed in similar fashion to make this exemption permanent.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Abrupt Climate Change Research Act of 2005, legislation which will address the critical, comprehensive and integrated research needed for abrupt climate change. In the 108th, this legislation was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. Its merits are just as pressing, if not more critical, for the 109th Congress as the legislation calls for developing and coordinating a research program over 6 years aimed at understanding, assessing, and predicting both human-induced and natural processes of abrupt climate change. The abrupt climate change research issue is one that the Maine Senate delegation has been working on for the past 3\1/2\ years, the genesis of which goes back to a Climate Change Conference in Maine in October 2001, which was attended by a wide array of stakeholders in the State who have been active in climate change issues for a number of years. I believe we all ought to be concerned by the picture scientific research is painting, which points to the reality and potential impact of abrupt shifts in climate. The December 2001 National Academy of Sciences report documented a growing body of scientific evidence that suggests our global climate can swing abruptly, not gradually over time. Moreover, such sudden jumps, and I quote from the Academies' report, ``are not only possible but likely in the future.'' Rather than dismiss this, as some have, as the ``science de jour'' I prefer to take this as a serious warning, based on the best available evidence and analysis. The risk of complacency is to gamble immense environmental and societal consequences. That's why the NAS report urged that a new research program be initiated to examine the potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. And that's also why, back in May of 2002, when NOAA's Admiral Lautenbacher was before the Commerce Committee testifying on NOAA's FY 2003 Budget, I raised the need for abrupt climate change studies, and the Admiral agreed this is a pressing priority. Since the introduction of the research bill in the 108th Congress, NOAA, in a January 15, 2004 report, stated that calendar year 2003 tied 2002 as the 2nd warmest year on record. Mr. President, as co-chair of the independent International Climate Change Taskforce, I was pleased to disseminate to my colleagues the recently published Taskforce report, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge.'' The ICCT includes leaders from public service, science, business and civil society, from both developed and developing countries. Our goal was to find common ground through recommendations that could be helpful to all governments and policymakers worldwide for developing solutions to address climate change. Indeed, our first recommendation calls for a long-term objective to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the pre-industrial level by 2100. This target would limit the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change if all countries take various actions. I will ask unanimous consent to submit the ICCT's ten recommendations for the Record. In the upcoming weeks and months, I will be introducing legislation that reflects these public policy recommendations. The temperature goal is crucial to the debate on abrupt climate change because, if the earth goes beyond the 2 degree C level, scientists have suggested that risks to both ecosystems and humans increase significantly. As the risks of accelerated or--as our report stated--``runaway'' climate change increases, a ``tipping point'' could be reached that would include the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, leading to the rise of sea levels. On this score, abrupt and paleoclimate research can greatly enhance the evolving body of scientific evidence, and that is why Senator Lautenberg and I spearheaded the effort last year to restore the FY2005 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, research programs that will enable us to examine past climate change patterns. This information will guide the development of future models to assist both scientists and policymakers to improve their understanding of climate change through, for instance, the CORC-ARCHES program and paleo- climate research. The University of Maine, under the direction of Dr. George Denton, has been part of the decades-long consortium that has been studying deep ocean currents in the Weddell Sea in Antarctica, and ice core samples from northern latitudes, which is helping scientists command a greater understanding of abrupt climate change. There have also been other, newer scientific reports that should give us great pause. Among those reports, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment states, ``Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.'' There is scientific observational evidence that indicates that regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, are already affecting a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the world. Off the coast of Canada lies a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has existed on the coast for 3,000 years, but it is now disintegrating. That melting has been accelerating over the past 2 years. In addition, coral reefs, an irreplaceable marine resource around the world, are under tremendous stress as coral bleaching is induced by high water temperatures. Indeed, there are reports of a massive region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life across the entire Caribbean Basin. As we turn to the future, we should harbor no illusions that we are looking at a timetable measured in epochs. We are talking about tens of thousands of years. To the contrary, observed changes tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could vanish in 15 years, the glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible may disappear in another 10 years, and in Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5 and one half degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting permafrost and dying forests. So my question is, what are we waiting for? Is this the kind of legacy we want to leave to future generations and the next millennium? Why not apply now the lessons of the past and present? Indeed, if ``past is prologue,'' and I believe it is, this bill will improve our understanding of climate change by calling for research to bolster existing, global records of past abrupt climate change, through the study of ice cores, for instance. In this manner we can improve scientific understanding of the mechanisms of abrupt climate change, and incorporate this knowledge into current scientific models. Even for those who question prevailing scientific opinion on the climate change issue, this bill should hold the appeal of increasing our stock of knowledge, wherever it may lead. In the final analysis, we need to carry out research that will allow us to gauge climate change secrets of the past, so we in turn might develop future models that will assist both scientists and policymakers in understanding climate change. The reality is, there is no doubt our global climate has changed in the past. There should similarly be no question that it would be beneficial to understand the manner in which that change has occurred and why, and so I urge my colleague's support for this legislation, and will work for its passage out of the Commerce Committee and to the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that the Summary of Main Recommendations be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' bill--as I have in the last three Congresses--because I remain dedicated to reducing power plant emissions that cause some of the Nation's--and Maine's--most serious public health and environmental problems. For too many years, coal-burning power plants exempt from emissions standards under the Clean Air Act have created massive pollution problems for the Northeast because whatever spews out of their smokestacks in the Midwest, blows into the Northeast, including my State of Maine, giving it the dubious distinction of being at the ``end of the tailpipe'', so to speak. The Jeffords' legislation calls for reductions of power plant emissions for pollutants that cause smog, soot, respiratory disease; acid rain that kills our forests and may be affecting Atlantic salmon streams; mercury that contaminates our lakes, rivers and streams; and poses health risks to children and the unborn, and climate variabilities from manmade carbon dioxide emissions that cause severe shifts in our weather patterns. Maine currently leads the nation in asthma cases per capita, which is not a surprise, but which it can do little about when nearly 80 percent of the State's dirty air--some days as high as 90 percent--is not of their own making but is transported by winds blowing in from the Midwest and Southeast. This bill will dramatically cut aggregate power plant emissions by 2010 for the four major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOX), the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide (SO2), that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; mercury (Hg), which poisons our lakes and rivers, causing fish to be unfit for human consumption, through a 90 percent reduction by 2009; and carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate change, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOX, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost-effective with available technology. The Clean Power Act will also eliminate the outdated coal-burning power plants that were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act unless they apply the best available pollution control technology by their 40th birthday or 2014, whichever is later. The thinking for the exemption in the Clean Air Act was based, at the time, on the assumption that the plants would not stay on line much longer. However, as energy has gotten more expensive, companies are keeping these older, dirtier plants up and running. Furthermore, just as the Clean Air Act already provides tradable allowances for sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, the Jeffords' legislation also allows for tradable allowances to control emissions for three other pollutants--NOX, SOX, and CO2--by using market-oriented mechanisms to meet emissions reduction requirements. The tradable allowances would be distributed to five main categories, including 63 percent or more to households; six percent for transition assistance to affected communities and industries, which will decline over time; up to 20 percent to renewable energy generation, efficiency projects and cleaner energy sources, based on avoided pollution; 10 percent to existing electric generating facilities based on 2003 output; and up to 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide allowances for biological and geological carbon sequestration. Of note, trading will not be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment. I am disappointed that the Clear Skies initiative addresses neither carbon dioxide as a pollutant nor anthropogenic emissions reductions for CO2. While I recognize that the pollutants listed under the Clean Air Act were chosen in order to achieve healthier air for humans by cutting back on smog and soot, and also for mercury contamination, I believe it is long past due that carbon dioxide be recognized as a pollutant that is harming the health of the planet, and indirectly, all of us. I am supporting the goal of CO2 emissions reduction in the Jeffords' bill in the hopes that the bill will be a rallying point to further the debate for reducing CO2 and at the same time, get our air cleaner on a quicker timeframe. In particular, Congress needs to develop a market mechanism approach for CO2 emissions trading--such as we now have for acid rain--to allow U.S. industries the flexibility and certainty to reduce CO2 emissions without the threat of higher energy production costs in the future that will be passed on to the consumer. I will continue to work with my colleagues, the White House and representatives from various industry groups, and environmental organizations to achieve this goal. The bottom line is that we have the opportunity to raise the bar for cleaner domestic energy production in an economically effective manner. Solutions exist in available and developing technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people who want a cleaner and healthier environment, including those in Maine who want to ensure that the State's pristine lakes and coast will remain clean and our forests and fish healthy for generations to come. My State of Maine is leading the way in attempting to reduce CO2 emissions as it is the first state in the nation to enact a law setting goals for the reduction of global warming emissions, through An Act to Provide Leadership in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change. The Act requires Maine to develop a climate change action plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and by as much as 75 to 80 percent over the long term. These are the cuts previously agreed to by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. The State law will also inventory and reduce CO2 emissions from state- funded programs and facilities, and to spur at least 50 partnerships with businesses and non-profit organizations to reduce CO2 emissions. While Maine was the first to put into effect a comprehensive climate change law, other states from the Northeast and around the country have taken, or are currently taking, actions to address climate change at the state or regional level. The Jeffords' legislation calls for Federal leadership as well and sends a powerful message to those who would heavily pollute our air: your days are numbered. I am optimistic that the Congress can come together with the President, industry and all those who want cleaner, healthier air to create a cohesive policy that is best suited for our nation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords' four-pollutant legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' bill--as I have in the last three Congresses--because I remain dedicated to reducing power plant emissions that cause some of the Nation's--and Maine's--most serious public health and environmental problems. For too many years, coal-burning power plants exempt from emissions standards under the Clean Air Act have created massive pollution problems for the Northeast because whatever spews out of their smokestacks in the Midwest, blows into the Northeast, including my State of Maine, giving it the dubious distinction of being at the ``end of the tailpipe'', so to speak. The Jeffords' legislation calls for reductions of power plant emissions for pollutants that cause smog, soot, respiratory disease; acid rain that kills our forests and may be affecting Atlantic salmon streams; mercury that contaminates our lakes, rivers and streams; and poses health risks to children and the unborn, and climate variabilities from manmade carbon dioxide emissions that cause severe shifts in our weather patterns. Maine currently leads the nation in asthma cases per capita, which is not a surprise, but which it can do little about when nearly 80 percent of the State's dirty air--some days as high as 90 percent--is not of their own making but is transported by winds blowing in from the Midwest and Southeast. This bill will dramatically cut aggregate power plant emissions by 2010 for the four major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOX), the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide (SO2), that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; mercury (Hg), which poisons our lakes and rivers, causing fish to be unfit for human consumption, through a 90 percent reduction by 2009; and carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate change, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOX, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost-effective with available technology. The Clean Power Act will also eliminate the outdated coal-burning power plants that were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act unless they apply the best available pollution control technology by their 40th birthday or 2014, whichever is later. The thinking for the exemption in the Clean Air Act was based, at the time, on the assumption that the plants would not stay on line much longer. However, as energy has gotten more expensive, companies are keeping these older, dirtier plants up and running. Furthermore, just as the Clean Air Act already provides tradable allowances for sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, the Jeffords' legislation also allows for tradable allowances to control emissions for three other pollutants--NOX, SOX, and CO2--by using market-oriented mechanisms to meet emissions reduction requirements. The tradable allowances would be distributed to five main categories, including 63 percent or more to households; six percent for transition assistance to affected communities and industries, which will decline over time; up to 20 percent to renewable energy generation, efficiency projects and cleaner energy sources, based on avoided pollution; 10 percent to existing electric generating facilities based on 2003 output; and up to 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide allowances for biological and geological carbon sequestration. Of note, trading will not be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment. I am disappointed that the Clear Skies initiative addresses neither carbon dioxide as a pollutant nor anthropogenic emissions reductions for CO2. While I recognize that the pollutants listed under the Clean Air Act were chosen in order to achieve healthier air for humans by cutting back on smog and soot, and also for mercury contamination, I believe it is long past due that carbon dioxide be recognized as a pollutant that is harming the health of the planet, and indirectly, all of us. I am supporting the goal of CO2 emissions reduction in the Jeffords' bill in the hopes that the bill will be a rallying point to further the debate for reducing CO2 and at the same time, get our air cleaner on a quicker timeframe. In particular, Congress needs to develop a market mechanism approach for CO2 emissions trading--such as we now have for acid rain--to allow U.S. industries the flexibility and certainty to reduce CO2 emissions without the threat of higher energy production costs in the future that will be passed on to the consumer. I will continue to work with my colleagues, the White House and representatives from various industry groups, and environmental organizations to achieve this goal. The bottom line is that we have the opportunity to raise the bar for cleaner domestic energy production in an economically effective manner. Solutions exist in available and developing technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people who want a cleaner and healthier environment, including those in Maine who want to ensure that the State's pristine lakes and coast will remain clean and our forests and fish healthy for generations to come. My State of Maine is leading the way in attempting to reduce CO2 emissions as it is the first state in the nation to enact a law setting goals for the reduction of global warming emissions, through An Act to Provide Leadership in Addressing the Threat of Climate Change. The Act requires Maine to develop a climate change action plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and by as much as 75 to 80 percent over the long term. These are the cuts previously agreed to by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. The State law will also inventory and reduce CO2 emissions from state- funded programs and facilities, and to spur at least 50 partnerships with businesses and non-profit organizations to reduce CO2 emissions. While Maine was the first to put into effect a comprehensive climate change law, other states from the Northeast and around the country have taken, or are currently taking, actions to address climate change at the state or regional level. The Jeffords' legislation calls for Federal leadership as well and sends a powerful message to those who would heavily pollute our air: your days are numbered. I am optimistic that the Congress can come together with the President, industry and all those who want cleaner, healthier air to create a cohesive policy that is best suited for our nation, and I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords' four-pollutant legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America's finest citizens and the world's greatest military men and women continue to put themselves in harm's way in support of the establishment of freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also are helping millions throughout South and Southeast Asia to recover from the devastating tsunami that destroyed so many lives. These great Americans have made a commitment to serve this country come what may. They are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice with the knowledge that in doing so, they are defending the security of our Nation and advancing the very ideals upon which this great country was founded. Just as these men and women have agreed to make this commitment, so too must we commit to supporting the families of these soldiers who give the ``last full measure of devotion'' for us. It is the very least we can do to provide a greater degree of peace of mind to our service men and women, who should always know and trust that a grateful America will stand with and support their family members should tragedy strike. It is in recognition of their extraordinary selflessness that I join my colleagues, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Lieberman and others in cosponsoring the HEROES Act of 2005. Although Congress last year raised the amount offered to families following the death of a service man or woman for the first time in over a decade, I continue to believe that even that amount is an inadequate level of support in this day and age. For decades, we offered a nominal amount of between $800 and $3,000, depending upon rank, for immediate expenses to surviving family members upon the death of a member of our armed forces. In the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, Congress raised this to a flat $6,000, of which half was subject to income tax. Finally, we raised that to $12,000, made the entire amount tax-free, and tied future increases to the annual increase in base pay. Of course, no amount of money can replace the loved ones that are lost in combat. It's an unimaginable loss which can never be ameliorated by financial comfort. However, despite the increase in the level of support last year, the amount that we currently offer the families of our soldiers remains woefully inadequate to try to begin to address the immediate costs of funeral arrangements, the loss of what may in most cases be the primary wage earner in the family and the additional costs associated with the loss of a mother, father, or spouse. When one considers how long it may take for a family to regain its footing, how surviving family members may need to move out of military- provided housing and to secure private housing elsewhere, how a surviving spouse may need to search for employment to support his or her family, and how long it may take for insurance benefits to be paid out, this improvement in benefits is the very least we can do to alleviate the burdens and financial worry that come with such a loss. I strongly support raising the amount to $100,000, in addition to increasing the maximum benefit of the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance policy from $250,000 to $400,000, as this bill does. In acknowledgment of and appreciation for the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform, I hope that we can all agree on the need to help ensure that the futures of their children are secured should they sacrifice their lives in combat. It is for the sake of our brave servicemen and women and the families who depend on them that we introduce this legislation and for them that I urge full support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report to accompany the intelligence reform legislation before us today. First and foremost, I want to recognize and thank my colleague, the Senator from Maine and chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Ms. Collins, for her exceptional and tireless work throughout the past several months to produce this comprehensive to reform to our nation's intelligence community. I applaud her for undertaking this historic effort and for guiding this legislation through her committee and through the conference with the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis. As well, I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, for his efforts in bringing us to this day. It truly was an enormous undertaking that was assigned to the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I want to thank them for all they have done on this intelligence reform legislation. Intelligence community reform is not a new issue. Since the First Hoover Commission in 1949, studies have been conducted, commissions have been established, and reports have been issued on how best to structure and reform our Intelligence Community. Despite over 50 years of debate on the issue, it was the morning of September 11, 2001, and all that followed thereafter that provided the major impetus to get us where we are today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate passing legislation to finally address what has eluded so many for so long. To say that September 11 is a seminal moment for our nation is an understatement. That day forever changed the way we view the world. It was that day, more than any one before, that proved that we have entered a new era where our nation faces very different, more pervasive and inimical threats. It was a day, more than any before, which proved that intelligence is now and must always be our best, first line of defense against a committed enemy who knows no borders, wears no uniform and pledges allegiance only to causes and not states. It was a day that has proven that the intelligence community's old structure and old ways of doing business are insufficient for confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, my position on intelligence community reform has been steady and consistent--I was an early supporter of comprehensive reform and came to believe that a new Director of National Intelligence was vital in order to address the deficiencies and failures that became evident to us as a Congress and as a nation. The work of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence over the past 2 years in undertaking a thorough review of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, the regime's ties to terrorism, Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and his regime's impact on regional stability allowed me to delve into those failures and ask pointed questions about the methods and organization of the community. After the in-depth analysis of 30,000 pages of intelligence assessments and source reporting, and the interview of more than 200 individuals, the committee produced a report in July, 2004 that indisputably begged for intelligence community reform. I joined several of my colleagues, most notably, Senator Feinstein, on legislation overhauling the community and championing the idea of establishing a position, to be filled by single person, independent from the day to day responsibilities of running a single intelligence agency, and whose sole responsibility is to lead and manage the intelligence community. The Feinstein legislation, I believe, was a catalyst from which to begin this reform and I am proud to have been associated with it. Senator Feinstein's early and steadfast work on this issue was crucial and I commend her for her dedication and vision. The conference report we have before us today is not perfect. It is not, in my mind, an ideal solution. There are holes--some glaring--that I believe should be filled. But the fact that we are on the precipice of passing such a landmark package is indeed impressive. This bill is a product of compromise and again, I want to thank my Senate colleagues, led by Senators Collins and Lieberman, who served on the conference committee that produced this bill. Mr. President, issues of accountability have often been central to the work we as Senators do in seeking to bring better government to our constituents--particularly when matters of national security are at stake. In that vein, Mr. President, before the release of the 9/11 Commission report earlier this year, I introduced stand-alone legislation--cosponsored by Senator Mikulski creating an Inspector General for Intelligence. The ``Intelligence Community Accountability Act of 2004'' proposed an independent inspector general for the entire intelligence community--all fifteen agencies and department members. I introduced this legislation largely as a result of my experience as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the revelations of the investigation on the pre-war intelligence of Iraq. The version of the reform bill adopted by the Senate in October embraced the concept and spirit of my earlier bill and included language creating an Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence. I was disappointed to learn that much of the language included in the Senate-passed version of the bill was not ultimately included in the final package before us today. The conference agreement gives the DNI the authority to establish an IG according to the guidelines set forth in the Inspector General Act of 1978. Unfortunately, the conference agreement does not mandate that he establish an IG. I want to make clear my intentions to continue working for better and more comprehensive accountability in our intelligence community. It is my view that the scaling back of the Inspector General provision in this bill flies in the face of the 521 page report that followed the Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq pre-war intelligence and ignores vital problems of information sharing that have been found throughout the community. My strong preference would be to codify and explicitly define expanded authorities for the DNI's inspector general rather than simply give the DNI the authority to create an IG on his/her own. While I am pleased that the conference agreement does retain DNI inspector general language in spirit, I am dismayed that it is not stronger. I firmly believe that a community-wide IG should have the authorities to delve into the coordination and communication between and among the various entities of the intelligence community. An inspector general will help to enhance the authorities of the National Intelligence Director that we will shortly create, assisting this person in instituting better management accountability, and helping him/her to resolve problems within the intelligence community systematically. Ideally, the inspector general for intelligence should have the ability to investigate current issues within the intelligence community, not just conduct ``lessons learned'' studies. The IG should have the abilities to seek to identify problem areas and identify the most efficient and effective business practices required to ensure that critical deficiencies can be addressed before it is too late, before we have another intelligence failure, before lives are lost. In short, an inspector general for intelligence that can look across the entire intelligence community will help improve management, coordination, cooperation and information sharing among the intelligence agencies. A strong, effective IG will help break down the barriers that have perpetuated the parochial, stove-pipe approaches to intelligence community management and operations. Too many incidents of failure to prevent attacks, failure to properly collect the needed intelligence, failure to adequately analyze that intelligence and failure to share information within the community beg for better accountability in the entirety of the community. Who better to do this than a single IG, who can reach across the community, work with the existing individual agency IG's, and confront any problem with a macro, overarching view? This remains an issue on which I look forward to further working with my colleagues in the very near future. As I stated earlier, members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have spent a great deal of the past year looking at the intelligence available to national policymakers in the run-up to military action in Iraq. One of the major conclusions we drew was that the intelligence community suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction program and that this ``group think'' dynamic led intelligence community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. From our review, we know the intelligence community relied on sources that supported its predetermined ideas, and we also know that there was no alternative analysis or ``red teaming'' performed on such a critical issue, allowing assessments to go unchallenged. This loss of objectivity or unbiased approach to intelligence collection and analysis led to erroneous assumptions about Iraq's WMD program. For this reason, I believed that was vital that we use this opportunity to reform the intelligence community to ensure that the new National Intelligence Director was given the tools and the authority to ensure that alternative analysis becomes a key component in the development of national intelligence products. To that end, I offered amendment during the Senate debate that called on the Director of National Intelligence to establish, as he sees fit, alternative analysis units within our analysis agencies. I am pleased the conferees elected to retain provisions within the bill that require the Director of National Intelligence to establish a process for ensuring that elements of the intelligence community conduct alternative analysis of their intelligence products. National policy makers must be confident that the underlying assumptions and judgements of any analysis have been tested and found valid before making decisions that affect our national security. Another key failure the committee uncovered was in the production of a comprehensive and coordinated intelligence community assessment of Iraq's WMD programs. In fact, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was not written until Congress requested that one be drafted in September 2002, in the midst of the debate about taking military action against Iraq. We received the NIE just 2 weeks before we voted to authorize the President to take action in Iraq. The intelligence community should have been more aggressive in identifying Iraq as an issue that warranted the production of a National Intelligence Estimate and should have initiated the production of such an estimate prior to the request from Congress. For this reason, I offered an amendment that would have required the examination of the process by which the NIE's are initiated, developed, coordinated and disseminated to national decision makers. I believe we must develop methods to ensure that NIE's are linked to priorities outlined by the President and Director of National Intelligence and not simply developed in an ad hoc fashion. It is unacceptable that just weeks before Congress considered the weightiest matter that will ever come before us--the decision to commit our young men and women to war--the intelligence community only first began working on an intelligence estimate on what they would face. We must do better than that. We must have the foresight to know what threats face us in the future and the ability to develop and report accurate and timely national intelligence estimates. I am disappointed that the final bill passed out of conference did not include provisions for streamlining the development of our National Intelligence Estimate and I will continue to work toward improving that process. During the year, we in the committee heard testimony that indicated that the effectiveness and interagency coordination within the Terrorism Threat Integration Center left much to be desired so I am vitally interested in what structures work best for integrating the vast intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination efforts necessary to counter the international threat of terrorism. Coupled with the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that a series of such centers be established, I believed it was time that we took the time to understand what worked well in such centers and what didn't. Therefore I amended the Senate bill to require an evaluation of the effectiveness of the NCTC at the end of one year. That evaluation would have included an assessment of whether the NCTC is accomplishing their mission, the state of interagency relations, problems or issues relating to personnel assignments, funding, and so forth. Unfortunately, with this bill, will not have the opportunity to understand whether the NCTC construct is the best way to approach other threats facing the nation. My concern has been amplified by the merging of the TTIC into the NCTC and the establishment of a National Counter Proliferation Center in this bill. Congress will need to closely monitor the effectiveness of such centers to ensure that they provide the nation with the agility and flexibility we must have to counter the 21st century threats. The legislation before us today addresses another key issue: the continuing vulnerability of our transportation system. Obviously, failures in transportation security were paramount in the September 11 attacks. As the 9/11 Commission report states, the 9/11 terrorists were ``19 for 19'' in penetrating our shortcomings. To be sure, we can never secure our entire transportation system 100 percent. But, given the consequences of a failure to secure the system, that doesn't mean we should not expend 100 percent of our effort in trying. First, the conference report implements the central 9/11 Commission recommendation with respect to transportation security by requiring that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop and implement a national, overarching strategy for transportation security. Timely development of this strategy is critical so that we are able to understand what needs to be done, what we need to do to get there, and to fill the gaping holes in our homeland security system as quickly as possible. This bill also addresses the issue of air cargo security, which in my view is currently a gaping hole in our homeland security net-- particularly when you consider that half of the hull of each passenger flight is typically filled with cargo. As Governor Kean, Chair of the 9/11 Commission, put it, quite simply, before the Senate Commerce Committee this summer, ``The Transportation Security Administration must improve its efforts to identify and physically screen cargo.'' The bill before us today would help TSA to do just that by incorporating an amendment written by Senator Rockefeller, which I cosponsored, authorizing $600 million to enhance security on both all- cargo and passenger aircraft. The conference report also requires TSA to develop better technologies for air cargo security, authorizes funding for equipment and research and development and to create a pilot program to evaluate the use of currently available and next generation blast-resistant containers. Overall, with respect to transportation security, I believe that the comprehensive, bipartisan bill before us today will give TSA the tools it needs to carry out his critical piece of the homeland security puzzle--securing our air transportation system. I have addressed some of the issues that were central to my work on this matter and shared many of my concerns with this conference agreement package. It is critical, however, that I also express my deep sense of satisfaction that we are here today, ready to pass this bill and send it to the President's desk. We have come a long way this year. And while it is not a perfect product, this legislation is still one the American people can be proud of. As of last week, we were not even sure this accomplishment would be attributed to the 108th Congress or if we would begin anew next year with the 109th. This legislation builds on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and also addresses the views of many other studies and related commissions which focused on protecting the United States. Mr. President, on September 7, 2004, I had the opportunity to question members of the 9/11 Commission during a SSCI hearing and in response to my question about how much we needed to accomplish in this round of reform, former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman reminded us that in the 1947 National Security Act, there were at least three major fine-tunings in the subsequent years. He told us that the basic framework was passed as one package, but it was recognized there was more needed to be done or refining what was done in the original act. He said that if we could get the framework passed, then the flesh can be put on the bones further down the road. He specifically mentioned that some things such as how many of the national intelligence centers we should establish could wait until the DNI got his feet on the ground but that our primary focus should be to put the framework in place now. I agree with Secretary Lehman and that is why I will support passage of this bill even while believing we have much work left ahead before we have successfully transformed our intelligence apparatus, in the executive branch and the legislative branch, into an organization that is fully equipped to meet the challenges and threats this Nation will face in the future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues today in paying tribute to a man who, in the President's words, ``has left his mark on virtually every major issue'' during his service in this body, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, the Budget Committee chairman, our colleague Don Nickles. For more than two decades, Senator Nickles has served the people of Oklahoma and America with strength of conviction, wisdom, and hard work, every day. I have had the good fortune of serving with the Senator from Oklahoma for a decade, particularly closely on the Budget and Finance Committee, and for 6 years as his counsel while he was majority whip. I have gotten to know well Senator Nickles' passion and insight, his firm understanding of policy matched with ability to plainly articulate it, and his generous sense of humor and warm personality that have made him a colleague no one will soon forget. Oklahoma sent Don Nickles to the Senate in the year of the ``Reagan Revolution''--1980. In many ways--and I know the Senator has said so himself--his start in public service was molded and defined by President Reagan's inspiring vision and love of freedom. Our new 69- year-old President projected a contagious, even youthful optimism. So did the new Senator from Oklahoma, but in Don Nickles' case, it was the optimism of youth. At 31, he was the youngest Republican elected to this chamber in American history. Senator Nickles' contributions shepherding the Reagan agenda through Congress were immediate and his rise was meteoric. After 6 years he had served as NRSC chairman and was at the helm of the Republican policy council. I must say that as Chair of the Small Business Committee, I think it is an invaluable asset to the Senate to have a colleague such as Senator Nickles who has been there on the front lines of job creation as an entrepreneur--starting his own janitorial service to work his way through Oklahoma State. Before Senator Nickles came to Washington, he was a small businessman from Ponca City, OK. He was already allergic to needless red tape and gridlock. So when Senator Nickles sees a problem, he sets out to solve it--guided by his deeply held principles and informed by a firm grasp of the legislative process. Like the leader he counts as his mentor, President Reagan, the Senator from Oklahoma brings to public life his firmly rooted beliefs, a can-do Heartland optimism, and that rare ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Senator Nickles is a colleague I will miss, and I wish him, his wife Linda, and his family much happiness in the new endeavors that lie ahead. I am pleased to join my colleagues in thanking and honoring Senator Nickles for over two decades of distinguished service to the country he loves and the State he has made proud. john breaux Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend and incomparable colleague in both the House and Senate for 26 years, Senator John Breaux. The senior Senator from Louisiana leaves this institution stronger for having lent his voice and his leadership to these Chambers. Senator Breaux's commitment to bipartisan statesmanship has enriched the Senate, improved the lives of Louisiana families and resulted in landmark accomplishments for the American people. Churchill said that ``A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.'' By that definition, none can doubt which camp Senator Breaux falls in. He is the Senate's most irrepressible optimist. He steps into the breach, not merely in words, but in countless efforts over his tenure in both the House and Senate to make the process work for the people it is intended to serve. Where some see hopeless gridlock, Senator Breaux always sees a glimmer of hope and acts on it. Never settling for complacency, he uses his trademark tenacity and energy to move the deliberative process forward. His is a record of achievement over acrimony. I personally was privileged to work closely with Senator Breaux for more than two decades. He and I have always shared a vision of politics and public life as positive and constructive endeavors. And we have a long history together, dating back to our days serving in the House of Representatives, of reaching across the aisle to reach consensus and produce results. In fact, we worked together on such fundamental issues as the Federal budget when Senator Breaux was a member of a moderate, southern Democrat group called the Boll Weevils, and I a member of the northeast Republican Gypsy Moths. Some still wonder why both our groups carried the names of ravenous insects. But it was fortuitous that Senator Breaux and I had this record of cooperation because it seemed only natural when we later teamed-up as cochairs of the Senate Centrist Coalition, which Senator Breaux founded along with the late Senator John Chafee in 1995 during the Government shutdown. So there is no question that I will miss him--we will all miss him-- because we need more leaders such as Senator John Breaux in Congress. He has proven that we can cultivate common ground even out of sometimes barren partisan landscape. And his ability to forge compromises has made possible many signature accomplishments of both Democrat and Republican administrations. Senator Breaux views public service as an opportunity to get things done for the people he serves, to make a difference in their lives--whether it was reforming welfare to help families move from public assistance to self-sufficiency, strengthening and saving Medicare and Social Security, preserving wetlands like the Louisiana Bayou, or providing tax relief to stimulate to job creation. What has made Senator Breaux so effective is not only his legislative acumen, but also his personal bonds with colleagues. The Senator has brought people together with his self-effacing wit, his candid approach, and his eagerness to reach out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. So it is not surprising that he departs the Senate with the respect, trust and affection of Senators across the political spectrum. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served alongside Senator Breaux, and I wish him, his wife Lois, and their entire family all the best in their future endeavors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I comment on the portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 that reauthorizes the Small Business Administration. Of particular importance to me is the inclusion of many aspects of my prior bills, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S.1375, which was approved by the Senate on September 26, 2003 by unanimous consent, and of my more recent SBA bill, the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004, S.2821. These provisions reauthorize for 2 years the programs administered by the Small Business Administration under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and contain significant improvements to the SBA's lending and technical assistance programs. For over a year, I have worked with the House Small Business Committee and the administration, making numerous attempts to accommodate my colleagues and to resolve outstanding issues that blocked the passage of a comprehensive bill. Various forms of my original bill have been introduced over this period in order to help move the other body's stalled legislation, while in the meantime our Nation's small businesses have waited to receive the benefits of improved SBA services that are contained in this bill. The vast majority of businesses in each State in this country are small businesses. In Maine, 98 percent of businesses are small businesses. By enacting these provisions Congress is fulfilling its obligation in helping our entrepreneurs reach their American dream. The SBA is a vital resource not only for our Nation's 25 million small businesses, but also for the millions of Americans relying upon small business ownership as an alternative to the ``traditional workplace'' where corporate America once offered life-long futures for workers. The SBA's fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out Congress mandates include a wide array of financial, procurement, management, and technical assistance programs tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. As the economy continues to recover and grow, it is essential that Congress send a message that affirms long-term stability in the programs the SBA provides to the small business community. In the 50-year period since the establishment of the SBA, there have been many revisions and additions to the methods and organizational structure used by the SBA to respond to the evolving needs of small business. This bill builds upon those changes creating a stronger foundation for the SBA to deliver its programs. Since 1953, nearly 20 million small business owners have received direct or indirect help from one of the SBA's lending or technical assistance programs, making the agency one of the government's most cost-effective instruments for economic development. The SBA current loan portfolio of more than 200,000 loans, worth more than $45 billion, makes it the largest single supporter of small businesses in the country. Last year alone, lenders have made 83,912 loans to small businesses in the SBA's two major loan programs, with a total value of $16.5 billion. Moreover, the SBA Small Business Investment Company program's current portfolio of more than 16,900 financings with an initial investment amount of $17.2 billion makes it the largest single equity-type backer of U.S. businesses in the Nation. Since 1958 the venture capital program has put more than $42.3 billion into the hands of small business owners, and this year it has produced investments of more than $2.6 billion in small businesses. The SBA estimates that in the last fiscal year its loan and venture capital programs have provided small businesses with $19.7 billion in various forms of financing, enabling small businesses to create or retain 716,144 jobs. In my home state of Maine alone, almost 2,500 SBA loans have been provided since 1999, for a total of over $288 million, to small businesses that might not have qualified for loans through alternative channels. These loans are critical to providing capital to small businesses in every state and now more will be available to them for supplying this country with additional production, jobs, and income. Through a great deal of hard work, many aspects of S.1375 that improved the SBA's largest loan program--the 7(a) program--were included in the omnibus package. To give you some examples, a National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will be created, in which lenders already operating as Preferred Lenders in the 7(a) program in many districts can be granted Preferred Lender status on a nation-wide rather than district-by-district basis, thereby greatly increasing the program's efficiency. The maximum size of 7(a) Express loans have been increased from $250,000 to $350,000 and the maximum 7(a) guarantee is increased from $1 million to $1.5 million. The SBA 504 loan program, which supports real estate and machinery investments, will also benefit. The maximum 504 guarantee, previously $1 million, is increased to $1.5 million for a general 504 guarantee and $4 million for a guarantee that supports a manufacturing project. For a loan that supports one of the nine ``public-policy'' goals named in the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the maximum guarantee is increased from $1.3 million to $2 million. Let me share some additional highlights of the provisions that are included. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, and Senator from a state with a rich manufacturing history, I am keenly aware that our nation's economy and security depends on our industrial base. Unfortunately, manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined since their historic peak in 1979 and that loss has accelerated in recent years. Small business manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our nation's manufacturing enterprises. It is impossible to overstate the role of small manufacturers within the overall manufacturing industry and our nation's economy. The bill includes a section that derives from S. 1977, the Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade, SMART Act, which I and original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich introduced on November 25, 2003. Specifically, it establishes a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force within the Small Business Administration, charged with ensuring that the administration is properly addressing the particular needs of small manufacturers. I am also particularly pleased that the Omnibus bill contains $109 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a cost-effective, public-private partnership that helps small and medium-sized American manufacturers modernize to compete in the demanding global marketplace. The MEP's funding had been drastically reduced in 2004, dropping to $39.6 million from a previous level of $106 million. Those drastic cuts threatened to destroy the MEP program, which is relied upon by small manufacturers across our nation. At a time when these manufacturers are facing an unprecedented level of competition from across the globe, it is vital that we continue to provide them the tools and resources that allow them to remain competitive and to continue to provide well paying jobs to millions across our country. For our veterans who give so much to our nation and who continue to take risks on the battlegrounds of the business world, the bill includes language that I originally included in S. 1375, extending the Advisory Committee on Veterans Affairs as a separate entity to continue its functions through September 30, 2006. The Advisory Committee responsibilities include providing better assistance and support to veterans who are forming and expanding small businesses, and providing advice to Congress and the Small Business Administration on policy initiatives to promote veteran entrepreneurship. With this legislation, Congress is also taking important steps towards fulfilling its promises to pry open the doors of public procurement for small businesses. Small entrepreneurs continue to face persistent barriers in accessing government prime contracts and subcontracts. Many of these barriers have been erected in the middle of the very programs designed to assist small entrepreneurs who are socio- economically disadvantaged or who do business in Historically Underutilized Business Zones. Therefore, it has been no surprise that the Federal Government has never come close to satisfying its statutory HUBZone prime contracting goals. Among other items taken from my earlier SBA bill, S.2821, this bill expands the definition of HUBZone-eligible firms to promote inflow of capital to HUBZone areas, tap the potential of small agricultural cooperatives, and place tribally-owned HUBzone firms on equal footing with other participants. It also extends the HUBzone program to military base closure areas such as the former Loring Air Force Base and protects companies located in rural HUBZone areas like Aroostook County, ME, from losses of their HUBZone status due to area redesignations. Duplicative paperwork burdens imposed on 8(a) firms trying to do business with state and local governments are also being lifted. Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the funding levels provided for the SBA in this bill. Since FY 2001, funding for the SBA has decreased by more than 32 percent, the largest decrease of any agency funded with discretionary spending. I understand the need to be particularly fiscally responsible this year, given the size of the deficit, but such a large cut to programs that focus on creating jobs is a mistake. The funding included for the SBA Microloan program will provided entrepreneurs with a source of financing when no other options are available. With over $27 million in loan provided through this program last year, I am satisfied that the bill closely reflects my funding request. I am pleased with the funding levels provided for the SBA technical assistance programs, especially the funding provided for the Women's Business Center program. During this Congress, I worked with the administration and the House of Representatives to pass legislation that would sustained funding for the most experienced centers. With women-owned firms generating almost $2.5 trillion in revenues and employing more than 19 million workers, they are the fastest growing segment of today's economy. In my home state of Maine alone, more than 63,000 women-owned firms generate more than $9 billion in sales. The funding included in this bill for these centers ensures that there are resources available to continue creating success stories for America's women entrepreneurs. I am deeply concerned that the final Omnibus bill did not reflect the Senate bill and include funding for the SBIR and STTR programs of $2 million and $250,000 respectively. These programs facilitated over $1.5 billion in government research and development grants to small businesses. Moreover, since the inception of the program in 1982, SBIR firms have produced more than 4,100 patents. Without the funding for these programs not only do our small businesses suffer but so does our nation. These programs capitalize on the small business sector's innovative potential. Technological innovation creates jobs, improves our way of life, and helps American companies maintain their competitive advantage. I applaud America's small businesses that continue to rise to the challenge of keeping this country innovative and strong. Three to four million new business start-ups each year and 1 in 25 adult Americans accept the risks of starting a business. Today's small business owners are making plans for tomorrow, including decisions that will create approximately two-thirds of all net new jobs helping to sustain local communities, according to a recent National Federation of Independent Business survey. Over the last 5 years the SBA's programs and services have helped create and retain over 6.2 million jobs. According to the SBA, the $65.5 billion awarded to small businesses in Federal prime and subcontracts in FY 2003 will create or retain close to 500,000 jobs. This bill should bring about similar or even greater results in the next few years. Too much was at stake for small businesses, and the economy as a whole, to allow SBA reauthorization to languish. It was time for Congress to find essential agreement and fulfill its obligation to America's small businesses. Clearly, if we strove for anything less, we'd have failed to support the backbone of our economy, our hope for innovation and new technology, and our small firms that employ millions across the nation. Again, I thank my colleagues who joined me in supporting this crucial legislation, thereby bolstering American small businesses and protecting Americans' dreams. Mr. President, Division K of H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, contains the Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004. Since the Act was incorporated directly into the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2005, no committee report accompanies the legislation. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am submitting for insertion in the Record, the attached explanation of Division K. I would expect the administrator of the Small Business Administration, in implementing the provisions of this act, to accord the enclosed explanation the same weight in divining congressional intent that the administrator would give to language in a conference report. This expectation is particularly appropriate in this circumstance because the provisions were negotiated and agreed to in cooperation with my counterpart in the United States House of Representatives. The Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S.1375, is a bill to reauthorize most programs at the SBA for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Additionally, the bill makes changes to various existing programs and authorizes several new pilot initiatives. S.1375 was adopted by the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by a unanimous vote of 19-0. S. 1375 was the product of a series of hearings and roundtable discussions that the committee held in 2003 on a wide spectrum of issues and SBA programs. The committee completed its series of hearings and roundtables on SBA reauthorization with a hearing on June 4, 2003, that included SBA Administrator Hector Barreto. This hearing provided an additional opportunity for the agency to respond to issues raised during the previous roundtable discussions, discuss its legislative package that was submitted to the Committee for review, and comment on the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission. The hearing also examined a number of agency management issues including the SBA's efforts to obtain a clean audit opinion on financial statements, implementation of a loan monitoring system, and workforce transformation plans. In addition to containing sections from the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, the Omnibus includes sections that derive from S. 1977, the Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade (``SMART'') Act, offered by Senator Snowe and original cosponsor Senator George V. Voinovich, introduced on November 25, 2003. Examples of provisions from the SMART Act contained in the Omnibus are sections that increase manufacturers' access to capital, and a provision that creates a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force, within the SBA, charged with ensuring that the SBA is properly addressing the particular needs of small manufacturers. Throughout the hearings and roundtables, the Committee's objectives have been to single out the SBA programs that work well, identify the reasons for their superior performance, and apply those principles to programs that need improvement. The voluminous amount of information that the Committee collected through the hearings and roundtable discussions held this year and in the previous Congress as well as information received directly from small business stakeholders has contributed greatly to achieving that goal and the results are reflected in the bill. While not all of the provisions of S.1375 are contained in Division K of H.R. 4818, I believe that by providing appropriate authorization levels, updating and improving SBA lending and technical assistance programs, and introducing new initiatives to assist America's 21st Century entrepreneurs, this bill will provide a sound foundation for the agency to begin its next 50 years of even greater service. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following these remarks an explanatory statement describing the small business provisions of H.R. 4818 be printed in the Congressional Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to introduce legislation to help keep Americans' telephone bills from rising and to prevent future disruption to the Universal Service Fund. The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone rates at a reasonable level for millions of American consumers and businesses located in rural parts of our country, areas where phone service would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The USF also provides discounts to schools and libraries on their Internet service through the E-Rate program, which I and Senator Rockefeller worked to establish in 1996. Finally the USF makes basic ``life line'' phone service available to low-income Americans, and gives assistance to rural health care providers. The bill I introduce today is a corrective measure that addresses problems recently encountered by the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. Specifically, this bill deals with a decision by the FCC that ordered USAC to adhere to a special set of accounting rules that applies to government agencies. As a private company, USAC had utilized the same accounting rules as used by the private sector, but was told last year that it was subject to the Anti- Deficiency Act, a law that prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. Adherence to government accounting rules is one of the Anti-Deficiency Act's requirements. However, the switch to government accounting rules has caused an unforseen disruption in the operation of the USF. In July 2004, USAC was notified that its method for accounting for funding commitments made to schools and libraries under the E-Rate program was illegal under the new government accounting rules, even though the method was perfectly proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result, USAC was forced to place an enormous amount of cash on its books by the close of the fiscal year, September 30; to freeze the program on August 3, preventing any action on applications for E-Rate discounts right before the start of the school year; and to liquidate all of its assets, resulting in $4.6 million in penalties and an estimated loss of $30 million in expected interest income. While USAC believes it can resume acting upon applications for E-Rate discount later this month, it notified the FCC on November 1 that, in order to continue compliance with the new government accounting rules, the USF contribution factor must be raised. The contribution factor is the portion of each customer's phone bill that is paid into the USF. Currently the charge is 8.9 percent of a customer's interstate calls made, but it will likely rise to 13 percent or more. Of course, this increase would be passed right on to consumers and businesses. Worse yet, this accounting change is likely to affect the other components of the USF as well, since they by and large operate in the same manner. If the USF as a whole is forced to make the same accounting changes that were imposed on E-Rate, the USF contribution factor may rise to 25 percent or more by January 1, 2005. As a result of a seemingly innocuous accounting rule change, schools and libraries across the country have been unable to obtain much-needed discounts on their Internet connections, leading many to shut off their Internet service altogether. A similar strain may be encountered by the USF as a whole, jeopardizing price supports for rural- and low-income Americans on their phone service. And if no immediate action is taken, the telephone bills of American consumers and businesses are slated to rise significantly come the beginning of the new year. My colleagues and I have examined this issue and worked closely with the FCC and our counterparts on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We have determined that, given the pending phone bill increases on January 1, the only way to address this problem is to pass a law exempting the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act through December 31, 2005. During this exemption period, USAC can continue to operate its programs in an orderly manner, phone bills can remain stable, and both Congress and the Executive Branch can work on a permanent solution to this problem. There is ample precedent for an exemption; indeed, many government programs are permanently exempted from the Anti-Deficiency Act, such as the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. This is a bipartisan effort among those Members who deal with telecommunications issues regularly. We have worked closely with the FCC and the House, and we have the support of the telecom industry, educators, and state and local governments. A permanent solution might require legislation, or it might not, but either way we will require sufficient time to craft that fix. This bill ensures that, in the meantime, the status quo is preserve, schools and libraries receive their Internet funding, the USF continues to operate soundly, and consumers' telephone bills do not rise.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to introduce legislation to help keep Americans' telephone bills from rising and to prevent future disruption to the Universal Service Fund. The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone rates at a reasonable level for millions of American consumers and businesses located in rural parts of our country, areas where phone service would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The USF also provides discounts to schools and libraries on their Internet service through the E-Rate program, which I and Senator Rockefeller worked to establish in 1996. Finally the USF makes basic ``life line'' phone service available to low-income Americans, and gives assistance to rural health care providers. The bill I introduce today is a corrective measure that addresses problems recently encountered by the Universal Service Administration Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress created to administer the USF. Specifically, this bill deals with a decision by the FCC that ordered USAC to adhere to a special set of accounting rules that applies to government agencies. As a private company, USAC had utilized the same accounting rules as used by the private sector, but was told last year that it was subject to the Anti- Deficiency Act, a law that prevents government agencies from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to them by Congress. Adherence to government accounting rules is one of the Anti-Deficiency Act's requirements. However, the switch to government accounting rules has caused an unforseen disruption in the operation of the USF. In July 2004, USAC was notified that its method for accounting for funding commitments made to schools and libraries under the E-Rate program was illegal under the new government accounting rules, even though the method was perfectly proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result, USAC was forced to place an enormous amount of cash on its books by the close of the fiscal year, September 30; to freeze the program on August 3, preventing any action on applications for E-Rate discounts right before the start of the school year; and to liquidate all of its assets, resulting in $4.6 million in penalties and an estimated loss of $30 million in expected interest income. While USAC believes it can resume acting upon applications for E-Rate discount later this month, it notified the FCC on November 1 that, in order to continue compliance with the new government accounting rules, the USF contribution factor must be raised. The contribution factor is the portion of each customer's phone bill that is paid into the USF. Currently the charge is 8.9 percent of a customer's interstate calls made, but it will likely rise to 13 percent or more. Of course, this increase would be passed right on to consumers and businesses. Worse yet, this accounting change is likely to affect the other components of the USF as well, since they by and large operate in the same manner. If the USF as a whole is forced to make the same accounting changes that were imposed on E-Rate, the USF contribution factor may rise to 25 percent or more by January 1, 2005. As a result of a seemingly innocuous accounting rule change, schools and libraries across the country have been unable to obtain much-needed discounts on their Internet connections, leading many to shut off their Internet service altogether. A similar strain may be encountered by the USF as a whole, jeopardizing price supports for rural- and low-income Americans on their phone service. And if no immediate action is taken, the telephone bills of American consumers and businesses are slated to rise significantly come the beginning of the new year. My colleagues and I have examined this issue and worked closely with the FCC and our counterparts on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We have determined that, given the pending phone bill increases on January 1, the only way to address this problem is to pass a law exempting the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act through December 31, 2005. During this exemption period, USAC can continue to operate its programs in an orderly manner, phone bills can remain stable, and both Congress and the Executive Branch can work on a permanent solution to this problem. There is ample precedent for an exemption; indeed, many government programs are permanently exempted from the Anti-Deficiency Act, such as the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. This is a bipartisan effort among those Members who deal with telecommunications issues regularly. We have worked closely with the FCC and the House, and we have the support of the telecom industry, educators, and state and local governments. A permanent solution might require legislation, or it might not, but either way we will require sufficient time to craft that fix. This bill ensures that, in the meantime, the status quo is preserve, schools and libraries receive their Internet funding, the USF continues to operate soundly, and consumers' telephone bills do not rise.