Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express support for this conference report on the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. At the outset, I commend Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas for their leadership during the conference negotiations and bringing this bill to completion. We're here, after nearly 2 years of discussion and work on legislation that, once enacted, will jumpstart the manufacturing sector of our economy and create jobs. Indeed, although this legislation is to repeal the FSC/ETI rules and stop the imposition of WTO sanctioned trade tariffs, the real reason we must pass this legislation is to assist our struggling manufacturers throughout the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, between January 2001 through January 2004, manufacturing employment in our Nation declined by 16 percent. In New England, there was a 20 percent decrease in manufacturing employment during that same time period. This means that between January 2001 and January 2004, New England's manufacturing sector employment declined by an alarming 28 percent faster rate than it did nationally. My home State of Maine has shed manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate over the past decade and all the more so in the past two years. From January 1993 through June 2003, a 10\1/2\ year period, Maine lost 18,900 manufacturing jobs. More specifically, from July 2000 to June 2003, Maine has lost 17,300 manufacturing jobs, the highest loss of any state during that time period. Our objective was clear: not only must we adopt a conference report that complies with international trade law, but more importantly, we need to offer our country's manufacturers a solution that will jumpstart their production and create jobs, and we must do so now. As a result of our loss at the WTO, certain U.S. goods exported to Europe are being hit with a 12 percent tariff. Critically, this bill will remove that tax on our exports. Were we to neglect this duty to ensure that our nation's manufacturers are simply given the chance to compete on a level playing field with foreign competitors, we would only be compounding the current situation. Instead, this conference report will ``reallocate'' the nearly $50 billion in revenues that replacing the FSC/ETI rules will generate and provides an additional $25 billion towards a tax deduction for our manufacturers. I am pleased that the conference report follows the Senate manufacturing deduction that is available to all domestic manufacturers and does not discriminate based on the manufacturers entity classification. Indeed, the original legislation in the House would have extended the tax relief benefits solely to regular corporate entities, or C- corporations. In the Senate, I fought to secure the benefits for S- corporations and partners in partnerships as well. This decision to provide a manufacturing deduction that is not entity specific, rather than a corporate income tax cut, is cruial because the ETI rules applied not only to corporations but also to S-corporations. As small business manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our nation's manufacturing enterprises, employ 12 million people, and supply more than 50 percent of the value-added during U.S. manufacturing, it is imperative that we do not increase taxes on our country's job creators--small businesses. In the face of record deficits, this bill also maintains our fiscal responsibility by including offsets that will crack down on abusive tax cheats. Both the Senate and House bills contain a variety of provisions that stop the proliferation of abusive tax shelters. Enacting these rules and other revenue offsets will ensure that we will be able to pay for this bill without adding to the deficit. This was a key priority for me during this conference and I am pleased that the conference supported a revenue neutral final bill. I am also pleased that the conference report includes a provision that will restore equity and fairness into the tax code for our country's naval shipbuilders. Quite simply, this provision would put navy shipbuilders on par with commercial shipbuilders in that they would be able to pay a portion of their income taxes upon delivery of the ship rather than during construction. Currently, navy shipbuilders must estimate profits during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process, and they must pay tax on those estimated profits--a process known as the ``percentage of completion method'' of accounting. The major shortcoming of this method is that shipbuilders must report progress payments as ``revenue'' rather than as a source of financing, whch had been recognized and permitted for the 64 years between 1918 and 1982. Additionally, this accounting method creates a ``legal fiction'' of an ``interim profit,'' when in reality a profit or loss is not reasonably known until after a ship is completed. This places a financial burden on shipbuilders during the critical construction phase, reduces the resources available to invest in facilities and process to reduce construction costs, places a burden on the cash flow management of the shipbuilder, and weakens the financial health of the defense shipbuilding industrial base. The provision in the conference eport will permit navy shipbuilders to pay 40 percent of their estimated income tax during the contract and pay the remaining 60 percent in the year in which construction is completed. In addition, shipbuilders will be able to report their taxes on a ship-by-ship basis rather than on a contract-by-contract basis, which therefore reduces the potential for abuse. Now, naval shipbuilders will be able to pay their income taxes in a manner similar to how commercial shipbuilders pay their taxes. The main difference, though, is that commercial shipbuilders are permitted to utilize this 40/60 treatment for only 5 years rather than the 8-year period under my amendment. This 5-year period for commercial shipbuilders is appropriate for them because most commercial ships take no more than three years to build. However, as many navy shipbuilders spend at least 8 years when building submarines, aircraft carriers, and destroyers, a 5-year window for them is simply inadequate. Consequently, this amendment provides for an 8-year window because that is the necessary time to assist the majority of our navy shipbuilders. Let me stress that this provision in no way reduces the amount of taxes that these shipbuilders ultimately pay. Rather, it merely allows them to defer paying their taxes until their profit is actually known, just as commercial shipbuilders are already permitted to do. Not only does this change embody sound tax policy, but so too does it improve our National Security. Indeed, this provision is limited exclusively to naval shipbuilders, that are charged with building our Navy's fleet of ships that protect our homeland. During this time of war, the last thing we should do is allow an inequity in the tax code to cause these companies financial hardship that might affect their production and output. I am certainly not saying these companies should get a free pass, and this provision in no way provides them with one, but what I am saying is that they deserve to be treated fairly given the instrumental role they play for our Nation, and this amendment will do just that. This conference report contains a great many benefits for small businesses that will play a vital role in improving our economy. For example, the report includes an amendment I offered that will extend the current $100,000 small business expensing limitation and $400,000 phase-out through the end of 2007. Although the Jobs and Growth Tax Act increased these levels from their previous $25,000 limitation and $200,000 phase-out, these limits will sunset at the end of 2005 and return to those lower levels. I believe it is imperative to inject certainty into the tax code so our small business owners can plan accordingly in purchasing the capital and equipment they need to run their operations, and this amendment will go a long way toward doing so. It was imperative that Congress take action to extend these benefits for our Nation's small businesses. By doing so, qualifying businesses will be able to deduct more of their equipment purchases in the current tax year rather than waiting 5, 7, or more years to recover such costs through depreciation. This change represents substantial savings both in tax dollars and also in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with the complex depreciation rules. For example, the IRS estimates that a taxpayer should expect to invest nearly 50 hours in order to learn the law, perform the necessary bookkeeping, and complete the forms in order to claim a depreciation deduction for an average amount of depreciable property. That is valuable time that the owner must take away from running the business. And in too many cases, it translates into additional fees for accountants to figure out these indecipherable depreciation rules. By maintaining the $100,000 limitation, small businesses will save time and accounting costs, freeing them to spend their scarce time and resources on what they do best--running successful businesses and creating jobs in America. I am also pleased that the report includes my amendment to modify the unrelated business taxable income rules to allow small business investment companies to receive investments from tax-exempt entities. By enacting this provision into law, small businesses will have better access to capital through the Small Business Investment Company Program. Small Business Investment Companies are government licensed, government regulated, privately managed venture capital firms created to invest only in original issue debt or equity securities of U.S. small businesses that meet size standards set by law. In the current economic environment, the SBIC program represents an increasingly important source of capital for small enterprises. While Debenture SBICs qualify for SBA-guaranteed borrowed capital, the government guarantee forces a number of potential investors, namely pension funds and university endowment funds, to avoid investing in SBICs because the woul be subject to tax liability for unrelated business taxable income UBTI. More often than not, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create UBTI. As such, an estimated 60 percent of the private-capital potentially available to these SBICs is effectively ``off limits.'' The amendment I offered corrects this problem by excluding government-guaranteed capital of Debenture SBICs from debt for purposes of the UBTI rules. This change would permit tax-exempt organizations to invest in SBICs without the burdens of UBTI record keeping or tax liability. As a result, small businesses will have greater access to capital, enabling them to grow and hire new employees. According to the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, a conservative estimate of the effect of this amendment would be to increase investments in Debenture SBICs by $200 million per year from tax-exempt investors. Together with SBA-guaranteed leverage, that will mean as much as $500 million per year in new capital assets for Debenture SBICs to invest in U.S. small businesses. Moreover, as people know, Maine is a rural State. In that light, I am pleased that this bill contains important to the timber industry patterned after S. 1381, the Reforestation Tax Act, a bill I introduced last year. Under the conference report, owners of timber lands would be able to elect to immediately deduct their reforestation expenditures on their timber property--up to $10,000 per year. This change would allow taxpayers to recoup more of their investments in qualifying timber property at a more rapid pace, thereby encouraging investments in reforestation and strengthening the future growth of our forests. The bill provides other relief important to the timber industry, such as the ability to treat outright sales of timber as a capital gain and be taxed at a lower rate. Likewise, it contains a provision to allow real estate investment trusts that own timberland to avoid a 100 percent penalty tax when they sell timber land in the ordinary course of their business. With foreign competition in the timber industry fierce, these provisions will enhance the ability of U.S. timber companies to compete. Furthermore, I am pleased that tax credits for biomass facilities are included, which are similar to the ones I introduced. For the first time, the current production tax credit will be available to biomass facilities that use waste products to produce energy. This will put the industry, currently at a competitive disadvantage, on a more equal footing with other renewable power, such as wind. The biomass facilities in my state of Maine are not only an alternate electricity- producing source, but they supply good paying jobs in rural areas of the state and are a large source of tax revenues. The Maine biomass industry uses forest waste, such as those unused portions of trees--tops and limbs--that are not put into making paper products, to produce electricity at their biomass plants. This helps to lessen the use of fossil fuel to make electricity. Since a barrel of crude oil has gone over $50 a barrel for the first time in history in recent days, these savings help what is becoming a critical--and expensive--situation. Using the forest waste also helps avoid an environmental and safety problem the mills would have if they had to store the wood waste on site. Additionally, the report contains a provision that co-sponsored that will greatly benefit our domestic film industry, which is an industry that plays a vital role in the economy of our country and also in my home state of Maine. Film makers will now be able to deduct up to $15 million of qualified costs during the first year of production. The remaining costs incurred will then be amortized over a 7-year period. Similar to the small business expensing provision, it is critical that we provide taxpayers with opportunities to recover their costs in a more expeditious manner rather than under the time-consuming and cumbersome depreciation rules. This film provision provides just that, and will in turn provide a key incentive for film makers to make their products in the United States. Another ``job-creating'' provision contained in the bill is a provision that I was pleased to cosponsor that will potentially increase the number of taxpayers that are eligible to claim new markets tax credits. Without question, the new markets tax credit program has had a profound impact on my home state. This conference report will further improve that program by extending the geographic area to low- income communities regardless of whether they fell under the previously-designated census tracts. Indeed, this provision will benefit rural communities throughout America, particularly those in Maine, because now areas will qualify for this critical investment opportunity based on their income and not on an arbitrary ``census tract'' determination. This report contains even more tax incentives to encourage job creation throughout America. For example, rail operators will not be able to claim a tax credit based on the amount of expenses incurred to maintain and upgrade short-line railroad tracks. Insurance companies will now not incur a penalty tax on old policy holder income when they restructure their operations, which in turn will permit them to save this money and reinvest it in their operations. Clearly, the provisions in this bill to assist our manufacturing base are numerous, deserved, and long overdo. Fortunately, however, we were also able to provide other sectors of our economy with much needed tax relief. For example, the bill contains a provision to permit rural letter carriers to deduct more of their carrier expenses. In addition, the report contains a provision that will allow fishermen to ``average'' their income over a period of several years to account for the cyclical nature of their industry and to ensure they will be able to fully take advantage of the losses that unfortunately often arise in their business. I am also pleased that the conference report includes measures I cosponsored to assist our Nation's shipping industry. For example, the Report includes a provision to permit shippers that adhere to the ``two ship'' rule to avoid falling under the complex, cumbersome subpart F rules. While the subpart F rules have an important role under the tax code in preventing the deferral of passive investment income, shippers should not be subject to them regarding their profits earned from their active shipping business. An additional provision that will benefit our shippers is one that will permit them to satisfy their tax liability in a manner similar to how shippers in other countries pay their taxes. Specifically, the report contains a provision to permit shippers to elect to pay tax on the ``tonnage'' of weight of their freight, rather than a tax based on their income. Providing for this election will increase the competitiveness of domestic shippers because it allows them to pay their taxes in a more efficient, less complicated manner, which in turn will allow them to spend less time and money in trying to navigate the complicated Tax Code. Notwithstanding all of the considerable benefits contained in this conference report, I want to take a moment to lament the report's coverage of tobacco legislation. As you all know, the Senate reached an important compromise on the issue of tobacco in order to get this bill to conference by adopting both an industry-funded buyout of tobacco growers' quotas and a grant of authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. The agreement crafted by my colleagues, Senators DeWine, Kennedy, and McConnell, would have given the FDA the authority to require tobacco manufacturers to list the ingredients on all of their packaging; to submit specified health information to the FDA for analysis; to regulate sale, distribution, and advertising related to tobacco; and to force the cigarette makers to substantiate, through scientific testing, any labels they might use to indicate that their product posed a lower health risk, such as ``light,'' ``mild,'' or ``low.'' I believe FDA regulation of tobacco is imperative because we simply cannot afford to ignore the toll that smoking has taken on our society. Every year 400,000 Americans die as a result of cigarette smoking, and approximately 8.6 million people suffer from smoking-related illnesses or conditions. In addition to the human cost, these staggering numbers have taken a financial toll on our country's health care system as well: annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking amount to over $75 billion, $23.5 billion of which is shouldered by federal and state governments. Even more disturbing is the fact that the next generation is being targeted by ``Big Tobacco'' while they are still in middle and high school. Virtually all of my colleagues have been visited in the past several weeks by members of the Coalition for Tobacco Free Kids, who brought in samples of new candy-flavored cigarette packs such as ``Caribbean Chill,'' ``Midnight Berry,'' and ``Mocha Taboo.'' Everyone knows that lifelong adult smokers have no interest in buying these flavored cigarettes. That kids are the targets of this marketing is consistent with a Brown & Williamson memorandum uncovered 6 years ago which stated, ``It's a well known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered.'' In the final analysis, I wanted to vote for a conference report that contained the Senate's tobacco provisions. As we know, the Senate conferees agreed and voted 15-8 to include FDA regulation in the conference report--but the House rejected its adoption. Failing that, I would have wanted the buyout provision stricken as well, and I voted for an amendment in conference to do just that, but that was also rejected. In short, at every opportunity I supported FDA regulation. At the end of the day, the conference report--designed to create jobs, bolster our exports overseas, and end the penalties against Maine's and America's manufacturers--was simply too critical to the economic future of our nation, and therefore I voted for this vital jobs bill. Likewise, I am disappointed that this conference report failed to include an important provision in the Senate bill that would have benefitted our military reservists. Under the Senate bill, businesses would have received a tax credit for payments made to an employee who was called to active military reservist duty. Proudly, I supported this provision when it was offered to the Senate bill, and I supported it during the Senate and House conference. Nevertheless, the final report, regrettably, failed to include this sensible, deserved tax relief. While we must pass this conference report to stop the imposition of World Trade Organization tariffs, I am deeply disappointed we did not take this opportunity to compensate our military reservists and their employers for their sacrifices. Unquestionably, I hope and expect that addressing this issue will be one of the first items we consider when Congress reconvenes next year. Finally, the bill before us today is silent on an issue of great importance to working Americans--the administration's new regulations updating overtime eligibility requirements that could deny millions of workers the overtime pay protections guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA. In May, I was one of 52 Senators who voted in support of the Harkin amendment to the Senate FSC/ETI bill which would clarify that the administration's regulations can result in no worker losing their overtime eligibility. In September, both the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee voted decisively to overturn the new overtime regulations. At issue is a Department of Labor regulation, which went into effect in August, updating the so-called ``white collar exemptions'' to the FLSA overtime protection. While DOL asserts that 107,000 middle- and upper-income workers will lose their overtime eligibility under the proposal, other sources put the number of affected workers as high as six million. Whatever the final impact of the DOL's changes on American workers, I have serious concerns as to whether this is the right time to take steps to jeopardize the right to overtime pay, which provides economic security for so many American families. As such, I was disappointed that the Harkin amendment was not included in the FSC/ETI conference report. This bill is a historic achievement and will benefit our economy. Many of these changes to the tax code are long overdue. In the end, the provisions of this bill will bolster our manufacturing base, increase the attractiveness of doing business in the United States and give a jumpstart to business, particularly small businesses, to create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the fiscal year 2005 national Defense authorization conference report. I acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in bringing this bill to final passage. Of course, I must also recognize the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege of working with them on the committee for several years and I can attest that each year they work together tirelessly to pass the Defense authorization bill because they understand how absolutely vital this legislation is to the effectiveness and well-being of our Armed Forces. For that matter, I also recognize every Senator on the committee for their efforts because this conference report authorizes the equipment, the training, and the operational funds necessary to support our troops who are right now operating across the globe to make our Nation and the world more secure. It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at home and abroad and, of course, risk their lives every day to restore freedom and prosperity to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to those who have served honorably by continuing to work on full concurrent receipt for those with a service connected disability, the same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee, the ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements without offsets. Last year we made great strides in addressing the disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension benefits reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And this bill goes even further by removing disabled retirees, who are rated as 100 percent disabled, from the 10-year phase-in period. Thanks to this bill, those retirees will be authorized for full concurrent receipt effective January 2005. This bill also finally corrects an inequity to those who have doubly sacrificed for our Nation, survivors of those who served this Nation well and honorably. First, they sacrificed each day as their loved one defended our Nation and they again sacrificed when they laid their hero to rest. And how did we repay them, by reducing their survivor benefit payment by over 30 percent once they reached age 62. In the first session of this Congress, I sponsored S. 451, along with 46 cosponsors, a bill to correct this inequity. My colleague, Senator Landrieu, sponsored a similar measure for the same reasons. This year we worked together during the debate to include an amendment that would provide survivors relief from this ``widow's tax.'' I am very pleased to note that the conferees also recognized the unfairness of this reduction and approved a provision that will, over the next 3\1/2\ years, raise the percentage of the annuity available for survivors from 35 percent after age 62 back to the 55 percent they were collecting before their birthday. This bill provides $420.6 billion for Defense programs in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by the Congress last year. In addition, the conferees authorized $25.0 billion for additional war-related costs for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, including more than $2 billion for force protection measures, including armor, munitions, communications and surveillance programs. In particular, this bill also provides a little over $10 billion in an area that is critical to the security of the Nation, our shipbuilding capacity. It has become more and more apparent that as we engage the forces of terrorism around the world we have become increasingly dependent on the ability of our Navy to not only deliver troops and munitions to the fight, but to act as the sea base from which our forces can operate without restrictions virtually anywhere in the world. Yet, as a former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310- ship Navy including 116 surface combatants, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant fleet had fallen to 106 ships and the Navy has notified Congress that by the end of fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force of surface combatants to 103 ships. Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.6 billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on terrorism. Moreover, it adds $100 million for the DDG in service modernization program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies that will dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet and mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older ships. Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide technologies to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance their training opportunities and increase the survivability of their ships. However, this is the last planned funding for the DDG-51 acquisition program, and the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, are being funded in the research and development accounts. Although this authorization provides $1.5 billion for the continued development of the DD(X), including an additional $84.4 million for the detailed design of the second DD(X) and $350 million for the continued development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts, there is a looming gap in the shipbuilding and conversion, Navy account for surface combatants. Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding industrial base. Many have noted that in spite of Congress' efforts to stabilize the workload in our surface combatant shipyards, the Navy's changing construction profile is undermining those efforts. I urge the Navy to heed the stated concerns of Congress, especially those of us with shipyards facing an uncertain future and do everything in their power to stabilize their shipbuilding accounts both in terms of budget and in schedule. Importantly, this bill sets aside $66.5 billion in the research and development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops will use to maintain their technological superiority over their adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11.2 billion for the critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the ``seed corn'' of our future military capability. Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine system has been on the forefront of the development of advanced engineered wood structures and composites. The bill provides funds so the university can develop the advanced lightweight structures the Army needs to meet the requirement to establish forward operating bases for our expeditionary forces in the far-flung regions of the world. In addition, this bill also authorizes continued research at the University of Maine into the structural reliability of fiber-reinforced polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help define and ultimately control the significant property variations found composite plates used in Navy ship construction. I am deeply disappointed that the House provision to delay the 2005 BRAC round by 2 years was not maintained in this bill because I believe fervently that closing domestic bases at a time we are engaged in a global war is not in the best interests of our Nation. During the Senate debate on the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, I and my colleagues, Senators Lott, Dorgan and Feinstein offered an amendment that would have delayed the 2005 Base Realignment and Closing Process, BRAC, for 2 years in order to focus on a closing process for our overseas military installations because we believed that the Nation must reassess its current overseas force structure and adjust it to meet the threats of today. Unfortunately, our amendment was narrowly defeated by a vote of 47 to 49. Since then, the President has announced a force restructuring that includes the closure of several overseas military facilities and a redeployment of troops and assets back to the United States. This is exactly the reason we offered our amendment and I continue to strongly believe that until our global defense posture is defined and our foreign basing requirements are thoroughly understood, closing our domestic bases is premature and ill-advised. Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.5 percent for all military personnel. It also contains a number of provisions that will directly aid the families of service members. For example, the bill removed the existing funding limitations on the military housing privatization authorities, which will allow the military services to continue to partner with the private sector to provide the highest quality housing for military members and their families in the shortest amount of time. This authorization rightly recognizes that our Reservists and National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such as medical care and special pay rates. The bill approves permanent eligibility for up to 90 days of TRICARE coverage for Reserve members and their families prior to mobilization, and 180 days of transitional health benefits for Reserves, active duty members, and their families when the member separates from active duty service. It also authorizes a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selected Reserve, providing varying amounts of aid depending on the length of time they were mobilized. Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the quality of life they have earned and security for their families. For these reasons, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass this conference report unanimously because in a time when our Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can do no less.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I express my views on the Conference Report for H.R. 4200, the fiscal year 2005 DOD Authorization Act. Defense authorization legislation typically contains a variety of provisions pertaining to government contracting, and these provisions have a significant impact on the ability of small firms to compete for Federal procurement dollars. Small businesses will find that this report contains both positive and negative provisions. First, I express my deep disappointment with the decision of the Conference Committee to remove from the act the legislative language requiring consideration of small business interests by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's advisory panel on reform of government contract laws, extending the panel's term, and specifically requiring the panel to reports its findings to the Congressional small business committees. I originally proposed this language as Senate Amendment No. 3273. It was adopted unanimously by the Senate and codified in Section 805 of the DOD Authorization Act. The work of this advisory panel, like its predecessor panels, is critical to the long-range direction of acquisition reforms. This panel, authorized by Section 1423 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, was to emphasize the study of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and the use of Governmentwide contracts. In making appointments to the panel, the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy was required to consult the agency heads as well as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Governmental Affairs Committee, and House Government Reform Committees. The panel's authorizing legislation required it to prepare a written report with recommendations and to submit this report to these named Committees along with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator, or OFPP. Curiously, the panel's mandate was silent with regards to small business contracting, even though the Federal Government is committed by law to the goal of awarding 23 percent of all prime contracts to small businesses. My amendment, as adopted by the Senate, responded to this glaring omission by extending the panel's reporting period, requiring the panel to make recommendations on assuring small business participation in Government contracting, and directing the panel to submit its report to the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Because of President Bush's strong support for small business contractors, the policies of Section 805 had solid backing from the administration. Over the summer, I wrote to the White House and requested that small businesses be represented both in the composition and in the work of this panel. In reply, OFPP Acting Administrator Robert Burton responded that, ``Based on your suggestion, I will ensure that senior level representation from the Small Business Administration will serve on the panel. Moreover the Office of Federal Procurement Policy will request the panel to specifically address small business contracting and subcontracting issues.'' Some recent changes to Federal procurement laws have had the effect of decreasing competition, accountability, and transparency in the procurement process while increasing the barriers to entry faced by small business contractors. Section 805 was designed to address this unfortunate trend, and I believe it should not have been removed. I am particularly disappointed the conference report contradicts the public position of the administration that small business interests deserve consideration in formulating Federal procurement reforms by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy advisory panel. However, let me be clear: the Conference Committee's decision to remove Section 805 does not overrule the commitment of the OFPP administrator and does not prevent the Senate Small Business Committee from closely monitoring the work of the panel and holding in-depth oversight hearings on its report. In addition, I find unfortunate the choice to permit exemption of the entire landscaping and pest control industries from the application of the Small Business Act. Adoption of this provision was not marked up by either the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship or the House Committee on Small Business. I also regret the conference committee's decision not to authorize transitional counseling on federal procurement opportunities at the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Our veterans, especially service-disabled veterans, deserve immediate assistance. However, I am encouraged that the Conference Committee directed the Comptroller General to conduct a study on this subject. I am also very pleased that HUBZone and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses can now participate in the DOD Mentor-Protege Program, preserved the parity between the small business reserve threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold in future threshold adjustments for inflation, limited the period of multi-year task order contracts to 10 years, protected small businesses engaged in the DOD satellite procurement against arbitrary changes, and refused to adopt changes to source selection criteria which may have favored large businesses over small contractors. In conclusion, I again commend President Bush and Acting OFPP Administrator Burton for the administration's continued steadfast support of small business-friendly procurement policies. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation, ``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act,'' with Senator Rockefeller. Green chemistry is a science-based approach to pollution prevention, seeking to reduce the chemical impact on the environment by developing non-toxic technology. The American chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as the American Chemical Society, support this legislation, which promises to speed the development of environmentally benign chemical technology. I would like to request that a letter in support of this legislation from Dr. Michael J. Eckardt, Vice President for Research at the University of Maine, be printed in the Record Green chemistry research and development improves technology used in industrial procedures and promotes the design of safer chemicals, the use of sustainable resources, the use of biotechnology alternatives to chemistry-based solutions, and an understanding of the chemical aspects of renewable energy. Clearly, there is a need to promote this emerging field, still relatively unknown, which furnishes both economic and environmental rewards--proving that the two are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. The legislation establishes a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities, through an interagency working group consisting of the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The program would provide sustained support through merit-based competitive research grants, research and development partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofit organizations, and research and development conducted at federal laboratories. Green chemistry R & D benefits all regions of our country, but let me share with you an example of how one company, Correct Deck, located in Biddeford, Maine, has successfully used green chemistry technology to grow its business. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a stricter arsenic regulation due to concerns about the public health effects posed by the chemical, which is commonly found in wood that has been treated to repel insects before being used for constructing outdoor decks and playground equipment. These EPA regulations will take effect in 2006. Correct Deck, taking advantage of a technology brought about through green chemistry research and development, manufactures a wood composite--a blend of sawdust and plastic--that closely resembles the boarding used on wood decks. Yet this composite does not splinter, requires less maintenance than wood, is not susceptible to termites, and most importantly, contains no harmful chemicals. By staying ahead of the curve, Correct Deck has seen sales of its wood composite skyrocket, and has since been striving to meet the ballooning demand for non-arsenic treated products for decks. Thus an environmental benefit also proves profitable. The breadth of green chemistry's positive impact on our lives extends far beyond decks. Also in the process of development are next- generation pesticides that target specific insects while avoiding harm to other species, and, through steadfast commitment to avoiding environmental harm, are designed to degrade into harmless materials after serving their purpose, rather than dangerously persisting in the environment. Green chemistry R & D is also discovering methods for using carbon dioxide as a feedstock for industrial processes, rather than as a harmful byproduct, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I could continue, but the windfalls are just too many to enumerate here. From removing public health threats, to enhancing worker safety, to contributing to the battle against human-induced global warming, the multiple benefits of green chemistry research and development are truly exciting, which is why this legislation has strong support from both environmentalists and the chemical industry. One of many chemical company executives singing the praises of green chemistry R & D, David Buzzelli of Dow Chemical Company aptly stated, ``Green chemistry technology is testament that when we merge our environmental commitment with innovative chemistry, we can create results that benefit our customers and society.'' My colleagues, by passing this bipartisan legislation and thereby coordinating and supporting ongoing green chemistry research and development, we speed these benefits along to all Americans by acting both as stalwart environmental stewards and innovative supporters of environmentally friendly industrial processes. I strongly urge you to support this legislation--and to consider the business opportunities and environmental benefits that the promising field of green chemistry could bring to your respective states.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation, ``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act,'' with Senator Rockefeller. Green chemistry is a science-based approach to pollution prevention, seeking to reduce the chemical impact on the environment by developing non-toxic technology. The American chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as the American Chemical Society, support this legislation, which promises to speed the development of environmentally benign chemical technology. I would like to request that a letter in support of this legislation from Dr. Michael J. Eckardt, Vice President for Research at the University of Maine, be printed in the Record Green chemistry research and development improves technology used in industrial procedures and promotes the design of safer chemicals, the use of sustainable resources, the use of biotechnology alternatives to chemistry-based solutions, and an understanding of the chemical aspects of renewable energy. Clearly, there is a need to promote this emerging field, still relatively unknown, which furnishes both economic and environmental rewards--proving that the two are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. The legislation establishes a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities, through an interagency working group consisting of the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The program would provide sustained support through merit-based competitive research grants, research and development partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofit organizations, and research and development conducted at federal laboratories. Green chemistry R & D benefits all regions of our country, but let me share with you an example of how one company, Correct Deck, located in Biddeford, Maine, has successfully used green chemistry technology to grow its business. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a stricter arsenic regulation due to concerns about the public health effects posed by the chemical, which is commonly found in wood that has been treated to repel insects before being used for constructing outdoor decks and playground equipment. These EPA regulations will take effect in 2006. Correct Deck, taking advantage of a technology brought about through green chemistry research and development, manufactures a wood composite--a blend of sawdust and plastic--that closely resembles the boarding used on wood decks. Yet this composite does not splinter, requires less maintenance than wood, is not susceptible to termites, and most importantly, contains no harmful chemicals. By staying ahead of the curve, Correct Deck has seen sales of its wood composite skyrocket, and has since been striving to meet the ballooning demand for non-arsenic treated products for decks. Thus an environmental benefit also proves profitable. The breadth of green chemistry's positive impact on our lives extends far beyond decks. Also in the process of development are next- generation pesticides that target specific insects while avoiding harm to other species, and, through steadfast commitment to avoiding environmental harm, are designed to degrade into harmless materials after serving their purpose, rather than dangerously persisting in the environment. Green chemistry R & D is also discovering methods for using carbon dioxide as a feedstock for industrial processes, rather than as a harmful byproduct, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I could continue, but the windfalls are just too many to enumerate here. From removing public health threats, to enhancing worker safety, to contributing to the battle against human-induced global warming, the multiple benefits of green chemistry research and development are truly exciting, which is why this legislation has strong support from both environmentalists and the chemical industry. One of many chemical company executives singing the praises of green chemistry R & D, David Buzzelli of Dow Chemical Company aptly stated, ``Green chemistry technology is testament that when we merge our environmental commitment with innovative chemistry, we can create results that benefit our customers and society.'' My colleagues, by passing this bipartisan legislation and thereby coordinating and supporting ongoing green chemistry research and development, we speed these benefits along to all Americans by acting both as stalwart environmental stewards and innovative supporters of environmentally friendly industrial processes. I strongly urge you to support this legislation--and to consider the business opportunities and environmental benefits that the promising field of green chemistry could bring to your respective states.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the importance of continuing every effort to help achieve a workable and lasting peace for the people of Cyprus. I would like to read some of the comments recently delivered by Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos in his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly. As President Papadopolous told members of the General Assembly: Surely the aspiration of humanity revolves around achieving the full respect of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The collective vision and effort required to fulfill this massive endeavor demands the contribution of all, to the extent of their capabilities. The President further stated: We are committed and dedicated to a bizonal, bicommunal federal solution that would bring about the reunification of our homeland which would be workable, viable and make a reality the gradual rapprochement of the communities in Cyprus, the social and economic reunification and which will not institute the division of the communities and institutions. Cyprus' European Union accession marks a great milestone and the beginning of a new era for the people of Cyprus. Cyprus and the United States are bound together by common democratic traditions, values, ideas and interests. We have a history of working together effectively to fight threats to global security. We in the United States must continue to push for a peace plan that will be acceptable to the people of Cyprus. I am firmly convinced that the people of Cyprus want peace. The road to peace will only come through a plan that is fair and that is workable. I join with the leadership of the Greek American national organizations in their commendable efforts to move the peace process ahead in a positive and constructive way. I ask unanimous consent to print the Record, the recent address by the President of Cyprus, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr President, I rise to address a very specific but invaluable component of the intelligence reform package before us today. As many may know, 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 which undertook a year-long investigation on the pre-war intelligence of Iraq. I commend the efforts and tremendous work of the authors of the underlying bill--they have embraced the concept and spirit of my earlier bill and have included language in their legislation creating an Inspector General for the National Intelligence Director. I would also like to thank Senators Roberts, Mikulski and Feinstein for their support in being original cosponsors of an amendment I was prepared to offer on this subject. I will not offer that amendment but I want to make clear my intentions to continue working for better and more comprehensive accountability in our intelligence community. In that vein, I want to express my strong opposition to any amendment or proposal that would weaken the language on the authorities and powers of the NID's inspector general. Any such amendment, if accepted or approved, would be a grave step backward in an area that is in critical need of a step forward. . . . I am of course talking about accountability in the intelligence community. Any amendment to scale back the IG provisions of the bill would fly in the face of the 521-page report that followed the committee's investigation on Iraq pre-war intelligence and would ignore vital problems of information sharing that have been found throughout the community. Any inspector general who is to serve the National Intelligence Director must have the power and authority to access employees and information in the agencies that lie in the national intelligence program. How can an IG be effective if his hands are tied because of turf battles and arguments over jurisdiction? My preference would be to enhance some of the authorities of the NID's inspector general as proposed by the underlying bill, but I would rather work to preserve the bill's language as it exists now than to gut it through the passage of any proposal that rescinds the abilities of the IG to delve into the coordination and communication between and among the various entities of the intelligence community. 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. I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in accountability during my 12 years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and as Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During the 99th Congress, I worked to bring the State Department Accountability Review Board into fruition as part of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986. Among other issues, it was a lack of accountability that permitted the radical Egyptian Sheik Rahman, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, to enter and exit the U.S. five times totally unimpeded even after he was put on the State Department's Lookout List in 1987, and allowed him to get permanent residence status by the INS even after the State Department issued a certification of visa revocation. In 1995 and again after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, I introduced legislation establishing Terrorist Lookout Committees in our embassies and consulates abroad--all in an effort to create more accountability in the protection of our homeland. In this same vein, my membership on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has allowed me to realize that the need for greater levels of accountability in our intelligence community is and must be a priority. It is all too evident that in addressing the key concerns and problems seen in the management of our intelligence agencies, accountability is an area unquestionably in need of dramatic improvement. I am pleased that as intelligence community reform has gained momentum, the concept of an inspector general has been very much a part of the debate. Indeed, an inspector general is included in the broad and comprehensive intelligence reform legislation authored by Senator Feinstein--legislation that I was proud to co-sponsor earlier this year. An inspector general for the whole intelligence community was also included in reform legislation offered by Senator Graham, the former chairman of the Senate intelligence community. Language creating a community-wide inspector general was contained in the proposal by current Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts as well as the recent bill offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman. And as I indicated, an inspector general is included in the underlying bill crafted by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. I commend and, once again, thank all of my colleagues for including this key component in their proposals. This bill takes a step forward in addressing the key issue of intelligence community accountability and it should not be weakened by any additional amendments or modifications. The belief that any new Director of National Intelligence should have an independent inspector general is one that few seriously dispute. In testimony before the intelligence committee in July, former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre stated that an inspector general ``will help far more in driving and shaping the quality of outputs from this community.'' And Secretary of State Colin Powell called an inspector general a ``good idea'' while speaking before the Governmental Affairs Committee. When I first drafted and then introduced my stand-alone legislation in early June, I had certainly envisioned that the inspector general the bill would establish would reside within a newly re-organized intelligence community. When I introduced my bill, I stated then that it was intended to be part of a larger initiative to overhaul the entire intelligence community's organizational structure. We have reached that point, and I am here today to continue my efforts to ensure that the final product the Senate approves contains the best possible mechanisms to bring accountability to the community. As I indicated earlier, I have participated in this national debate on bettering our diplomatic, intelligence and national security services on many fronts and for many years. But it was as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which spent a year reviewing 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 that I realized the real and dire need for intelligence community change. In looking at the intelligence community, we must remember that it is an amorphous entity made of up fifteen agencies, parts of departments, and independent bodies all spread out within our Federal Government. They each have their own mission, chain of command, procedures, history and institutional paradigms. The necessity for a stronger, independent head of the intelligence community became obvious to me and that measures must be legislated and instituted to hold the community and its amalgamation of agencies more accountable for the failures and shortcomings we had discovered. The committee's report on the pre-war intelligence on Iraq revealed systemic flaws in the intelligence community, perhaps, most notably in many instances, a stunning lack of accountability and sound, ``hands- on'' management practices. These poor management practices contributed to the mis-characterization of intelligence reporting on Iraq's WMD programs. I recognize that intelligence analysis is an imprecise art, with rarely--if ever--any absolutes; however, our report revealed that many judgements regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities were based on old assumptions allowed to be carried over year after year, virtually unchecked and unchallenged, without any critical re-examination of the issue. In short, there was a lack of analytic rigor performed on one of the most critical and defining issues spanning more than a decade--that of the preponderance of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq and the looming threat they posed to Iraq's neighbors and to the U.S. Intelligence community managers, collectors and analysts believed that Iraq had WMDs, a notion that dates back to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to retain, build and hide those programs. In many cases, the committee's report showed that the intelligence community made intelligence information fit into its preconceived notions about Iraq's WMD 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 example, the committee's review showed that analysts minimized reporting from a biological weapons source because the source reported information that did not fit with their beliefs about the existence of mobile biological weapons facilities. We also know that the key judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle ``probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents'' overstated what was in the intelligence reporting. This review revealed that some intelligence community UAV analysts failed to objectively assess significant evidence that clearly indicated that non-biological weapons delivery missions were more likely. In addition, the committee's report revealed that, despite overwhelming evidence suggesting that the aluminum tubes Iraq was trying to procure were for artillery rockets, some intelligence community analysts rejected information and analysis from experts, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Department of Energy, who refuted the claim that the tubes were being procured for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program. This information was rejected because it did not fit into some analysts' notion that Iraq was procuring these tubes as part of its nuclear reconstitution effort. Clearly stated, the intelligence community failed to ``think outside the box,'' a phrase often used by the community's analytic cadre to describe more innovative approaches to examining a problem set. Critical thinking and objectivity are crucial elements in both the collection and analytic trade crafts and ought to be ingrained, by appropriate training and effective oversight by management, in every collector and analyst entering the ranks of the intelligence community. Management has the responsibility to ensure analysts are trained to produce--and actually produce--the best, most objective, unvarnished assessments, and both management and the analysts and collectors have the responsibility to ensure that their trade-craft is practiced properly. Along this same line of accountability, our report revealed how poor leadership and management resulted in the intelligence community's failure to convey the uncertainties in many of the assessments in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. For example, the intelligence community assessed that Iraq had mobile transportable facilities for producing biological warfare agents but failed to alert intelligence consumers that this assessment was based primarily on reporting from a single human intelligence source to whom the intelligence community never had direct access and with whom there were credibility problems. In the analysis on Iraq's chemical weapons activities, the intelligence community failed to explain that several assessments were based on layers of analysis of a single stream of intelligence reporting regarding the presence of a tanker truck that was assessed to be involved in the possible transshipment of chemical munitions. Finally, during coordination sessions with Secretary Powell in preparation for his speech before the United Nations in February 2003, the intelligence community was instructed to include in the presentation only corroborated, solid intelligence. In fact, from our review we learned that the DCI told a national intelligence officer who was also working on the speech to ``back up the material and make sure we had good stuff to support everything.'' When Secretary Powell spoke before the UN, he said that every statement he was about to make would be ``backed up by sources, solid sources . . . based on solid intelligence.'' Incredibly, from our review, we know that much of the intelligence provided or cleared by the CIA for inclusion in Secretary Powell's speech was incorrect and uncorroborated. For example, the IC never alerted Secretary Powell that most of the intelligence regarding Iraq's mobile biological warfare program came from one source with questionable credibility nor did anyone alert Secretary Powell to the fact one of the sources cited in his speech was deemed to be a fabricator--something known by IC analysts since the May 2002 issuance of a ``fabrication notice.'' An independent, over-arching community-level inspector general who can delve into the communication between and among agencies, or the lack thereof, can assist in bridging the disconnects that lead to such failures. This IG should be properly empowered to reach into and across the bureaucratic and organization lines that separate each community agency so that next time, if the Department of Energy's assessments about the intended use of aluminum tubes by a dangerous regime are ignored or cast aside, someone can be held accountable. There is no question that the intelligence community requires systemic changes. We are here today to do just that. Americans have a right to know that their intelligence services are doing the best job possible in protecting their security. I say this even while I must recognize the dedication and professionalism of the thousands of Americans who make up our intelligence community. Each day across this country and around the world, they labor, mostly without recognition, to keep this country safe from harm. Our intelligence employees work under very demanding conditions and in environments that are extremely dangerous and can often shift without notice. It is their vigilance upon which we rely to give us the forewarning necessary to counter the many dangers present in our world. Although it is impossible to directly express our deep appreciation for their efforts, we have an obligation to express our eternal gratitude to those who serve America so well. Yet, however appreciative we are of the service done by those who work in the fifteen agencies that make up our nation's intelligence community, we as a Congress have a responsibility to continue to work to find ways to help them do an even better job, and more importantly, to ensure that any failures are not repeated and that we learn from past mistakes. At the same time, we have an obligation to the people of this country to ensure that both pride and comfort in our intelligence services exist. The people of this Nation, and those of us elected to represent them, have a right to know that when mistakes are made, corrections soon follow. That is what brings us here today. I ask unanimous consent that a chart entitled ``Decades of Terrorism'' be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. This chart beside me illustrates in the starkest of terms, what we are dealing with. . . ..and what this legislation is all about. I call the contents of this chart to the attention of my colleagues to serve as a reminder of ``the big picture.'' The goal of this reform movement is and has always been to make sure our intelligence agencies are better equipped, organized and managed so that we are in a greater position to detect threats and stop attacks. We want an intelligence community that is better prepared to ensure we don't keep adding to this list. I also refer my colleagues to a quote from the preface of the 9/11 Commission Report: ``The massive departments and agencies that prevailed in the greatest struggles of the twentieth century mush work together in new ways, so that all the instruments of national power can be combined.'' This bill we are debating today speaks directly to this charge. And it is my view that a strong Inspector general is a vital component of that effort. 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. As I stated earlier, I was prepared to offer an amendment that would have expanded on the language already included in the underlying bill-- but let me be clear, there are many positive aspects of the inspector general as contained in this bill. I am pleased, for example, that the bill ensures independence of the IG by including a separate budget account for his office. I also welcome the language pertaining to staffing, reports, subpoena powers and complaint procedures. I have no doubt that the authors of the underlying bill and I share the same goal--an independent IG with proper authorities to assist in preventing some of the failures I've detailed here today. As the Chairman of the intelligence committee stated last week on the Senate floor, members of the committee received a frightening briefing last week in closed session where we were told that despite the current terrorist threat we face, and the high state of alert we live under, information sharing between the intelligence agencies is still not taking place and no one is holding anyone accountable for their failure to do so. 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? It is my hope that the new inspector general for the NID, as authorized in this bill, will take great strides to guarantee that information sharing and accountability are woven into the fabric of the intelligence community. Mr. President, this is the whole reason we are here today.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act of 2004. Senator Dodd and I have worked together to ensure access to quality child care, and this bill represents the next step in our shared commitment to this important issue. This legislation provides grants to colleges in order to provide child care for low-income students. Countless college students have recently returned to college. At this time, we should remind ourselves that many Americans face obstacles that prevent them from participating in higher education. The absence of affordable and accessible child care is, unfortunately, one such obstacle. For many parents with young children, the availability of on-campus child care services is central to their ability to attend college. Campus-based child care is conveniently located, available at the hours that fit students' schedules and often available at a lower cost than community-based child care centers. Student parents rate access to campus-based child care as an important factor affecting their college enrollment. Unfortunately, such services are often in very short supply, particularly for low-income parents who may find the cost of existing services prohibitive. Higher education is becoming ever more crucial to getting a job in today's global job market. The majority of new jobs require education beyond high school. Getting the skills necessary to meet the demands of today's marketplace simply requires higher and higher levels of educational achievement. For many low-income students who are parents, the availability of campus-based child care is key to their ability to receive a higher education and thus achieve the American dream. Student parents are more likely to remain in school, and to graduate sooner and at a higher rate if they have campus-based child care. Child care services are particularly critical for older students who choose to go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills through advanced education. Children placed in campus-based child care also reap numerous benefits, given its high quality. In fact, children in high-quality child care exhibit higher earnings as adults, higher rates of secondary school graduation, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and a reduced need for special education or costly social services. Research shows that programs such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti, Michigan and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers demonstrate overwhelmingly that quality child care is a wise investment and is cost efficient. According to analysis of these programs the public saves $7 for every $1 invested in child care. These savings counted only the benefits to the public at large--in reduced costs of crime, welfare and remedial education and in taxes paid when the preschoolers became adult workers--without even taking into account participants' increased earnings or the increased contribution to economic growth those earnings represent. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act of 2004 will amend title IV of the Higher Education Act to help provide campus-based child care to low-income parents seeking a college degree. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education will award 3-year grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish a campus-based child care program serving the needs of low-income student parents. The Secretary will award $75 million in grants--equal to 1 percent of total Pell grant funding--based on an application submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to the institution's Pell grant funding level. This bill ensures that a wide range of low-income students are able to access child care services. Under the bill low-income students are defined as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant, or students who would be eligible to receive a Pell grant if they were not in the United States temporarily, and students who are from a family with an income that is less than 275 percent of the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget). Students typically qualify for Pell grants if their income is under $30,000 per year and in Maine, this means approximately 17,000 students could have access to high quality child care services while they earn their college degree. This bill will make a true difference in the lives of many low-income students who need child care to attend school. This bill raises the minimum CCAMPIS grant to $30,000 and authorizes $75 million as research has found that the existing minimum grant of $10,000 is often too small relative to the effort for many institutions to complete a federal application. We have found that grant offices on campuses often pass small grants over in favor of those that are most cost effective. Because the bill we are introducing today will help bring the American dream within the reach of American parents who need child care in order to attend college, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which will truly make a difference in the lives of many American parents.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to introduce the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act of 2004. Senator Dodd and I have worked together to ensure access to quality child care, and this bill represents the next step in our shared commitment to this important issue. This legislation provides grants to colleges in order to provide child care for low-income students. Countless college students have recently returned to college. At this time, we should remind ourselves that many Americans face obstacles that prevent them from participating in higher education. The absence of affordable and accessible child care is, unfortunately, one such obstacle. For many parents with young children, the availability of on-campus child care services is central to their ability to attend college. Campus-based child care is conveniently located, available at the hours that fit students' schedules and often available at a lower cost than community-based child care centers. Student parents rate access to campus-based child care as an important factor affecting their college enrollment. Unfortunately, such services are often in very short supply, particularly for low-income parents who may find the cost of existing services prohibitive. Higher education is becoming ever more crucial to getting a job in today's global job market. The majority of new jobs require education beyond high school. Getting the skills necessary to meet the demands of today's marketplace simply requires higher and higher levels of educational achievement. For many low-income students who are parents, the availability of campus-based child care is key to their ability to receive a higher education and thus achieve the American dream. Student parents are more likely to remain in school, and to graduate sooner and at a higher rate if they have campus-based child care. Child care services are particularly critical for older students who choose to go back to school to get their degree or to improve their skills through advanced education. Children placed in campus-based child care also reap numerous benefits, given its high quality. In fact, children in high-quality child care exhibit higher earnings as adults, higher rates of secondary school graduation, lower rates of teen pregnancy, and a reduced need for special education or costly social services. Research shows that programs such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti, Michigan and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers demonstrate overwhelmingly that quality child care is a wise investment and is cost efficient. According to analysis of these programs the public saves $7 for every $1 invested in child care. These savings counted only the benefits to the public at large--in reduced costs of crime, welfare and remedial education and in taxes paid when the preschoolers became adult workers--without even taking into account participants' increased earnings or the increased contribution to economic growth those earnings represent. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act of 2004 will amend title IV of the Higher Education Act to help provide campus-based child care to low-income parents seeking a college degree. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education will award 3-year grants to institutions of higher education to support or help establish a campus-based child care program serving the needs of low-income student parents. The Secretary will award $75 million in grants--equal to 1 percent of total Pell grant funding--based on an application submitted by the institution, and the grant amount will be linked to the institution's Pell grant funding level. This bill ensures that a wide range of low-income students are able to access child care services. Under the bill low-income students are defined as students eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant, or students who would be eligible to receive a Pell grant if they were not in the United States temporarily, and students who are from a family with an income that is less than 275 percent of the poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget). Students typically qualify for Pell grants if their income is under $30,000 per year and in Maine, this means approximately 17,000 students could have access to high quality child care services while they earn their college degree. This bill will make a true difference in the lives of many low-income students who need child care to attend school. This bill raises the minimum CCAMPIS grant to $30,000 and authorizes $75 million as research has found that the existing minimum grant of $10,000 is often too small relative to the effort for many institutions to complete a federal application. We have found that grant offices on campuses often pass small grants over in favor of those that are most cost effective. Because the bill we are introducing today will help bring the American dream within the reach of American parents who need child care in order to attend college, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which will truly make a difference in the lives of many American parents.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the monumental issue before us, the most profound, sweeping reform of our entire intelligence community in nearly 60 years, 3 years after the worst attack ever on American soil. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I welcome this opportunity to discuss critical issues I believe must be addressed this year. First, I thank the majority leader for his timely action and steadfast leadership ensuring that we have this legislation before us and we will complete action before we adjourn. I also want to recognize my colleague, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her exceptional and tireless work over the past 2 months to produce this comprehensive legislation to reform our intelligence community, to rightly reflect the sense of urgency that this legislation deserves and certainly one we should consider. I applaud her for undertaking this historic effort and for guiding this legislation through her committee 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 to begin this debate this week on the intelligence reform bill. As we begin these deliberations, I cannot help but be reminded that while the intelligence community reform has unquestionably taken on a new urgency, it is simply 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 our intelligence community. Yet in spite of the over 50 years of debate on this issue, it was the morning of September 11 and all that followed that has resulted in us being where we are today on the Senate floor debating reform legislation and poised to accomplish what has alluded so many for so long. To say that September 11 is a seminal moment for our Nation certainly would be an understatement. Indeed, that day will forever be etched in our minds and our national consciousness, just as it always will forever change the way we view the world. It was that day, more than any before, that catapulted us into a new era in which our Nation faced very different, more pervasive and inimical threats. It was a day that revealed in the starkest terms the truism that intelligence is now and must always be our best and 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 21st century. But if September 11 provided the catalyst for reform, the failures in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs provided even greater impetus for a major overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community, and that time for change is now upon us. For over a year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has focused intently on reviewing the prewar intelligence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, the regime's ties to terrorism, Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses, and his regime's impact on regional stability. After the indepth analysis of 30,000 pages of intelligence assessment, source reporting, interviewing more than 200 individuals, the committee produced a report in early July that indisputably begs for intelligence community restructuring. The report revealed a stunning lack of accountability and sound hands-on management practices throughout the community's chain of command. This lack of leadership and poor management allowed assumptions to go unchallenged, contributed to mischaracterizations of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, and led to significant lapses in the intelligence community's responsibility to convey the uncertainties behind their assessments. In short, there was a lack of analytic rigor performed on one of the most critical and defining issues spanning more than a decade. During our review, we learned that much of what analysts knew about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program predated the gulf war, leaving them with little direct knowledge of the current state of those programs. The ``group think'' mentality that dominated analysis is just one of the intelligence failures this report illuminates. Intelligence community managers, collectors, and analysts believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a notion that dates back to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to retain, build, and hide those programs, and in several circumstances the intelligence community made intelligence information fit into preconceived notions about Iraq's 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. We also now know that most of the key judgments in the national intelligence estimate were overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence. For example, the intelligence community insists that Iraq had chemical weapons. Yet this was based on a single stream of reporting. The intelligence community based its assessment that Iraq's biological warfare program was larger and more advanced than before the gulf war largely on a single source to whom the intelligence community never had direct access and with whom there were credibility problems. The intelligence community judged that Iraq was developing a UAV probably intended to deliver biological weapons. Yet there was significant evidence clearly indicating that nonbiological weapons delivery missions were more likely. The committee's report also notes the lack of human intelligence on the Iraqi target and reveals, as the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, also documented, that our intelligence community is averse to undertaking higher risk human intelligence operations, compelling our analysts to rely on inadequate, outdated, or unreliable intelligence. The points raised form an inescapable indictment of the status quo. The facts speak for themselves, and they are a significant reason we are here today to debate issues of intelligence community reform. The men and women, the dedicated professionals of the intelligence community, who toil every day to protect our national security, must have a decisive, innovative, and centralized leadership and management structure as well as the requisite resources to perform this vital and often daunting task. While I acknowledge the need to be cautious and deliberate, in this era of unprecedented challenges, we must ensure our intelligence community is poised to confront these challenges, and we must act now. The status quo is clearly not an option. On that note, I do happen to believe that we must create a national intelligence director and certainly that it would be a significant leap forward, and that is why I commend the committee for embracing this type of reform. I also commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership on this issue, and I am pleased to have joined with her several months ago, before the release of the September 11 Commission Report, in championing this idea of establishing a critical position, to be filled by a 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. I believe our perspectives on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the work we did for more than a year and a half on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program gave impetus to this notion and this idea that we clearly had to embark on major restructuring of the intelligence community. I happen to believe that creating this central position is a significant component in the larger imperative of overall intelligence community reform because it simply just does not make sense today to have one person who is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency also responsible for the entire intelligence community of the other 14 agencies. Rather, we need a national intelligence director whose dedicated leadership will ensure that consistent priorities are set and implemented, and that all the gears of our intelligence gathering, analysis, and reporting are synchronized and not ad hoc. In fact, Dr. David Kay, who is the former director of the Iraq Survey Group, said such management changes in the intelligence community could have resulted in a very different national intelligence estimate than we received on Iraq weapons of mass destruction program. He noted that failures of analytic tradecraft, culture, management, and mismanagement of the information flow could have been alleviated with proper management and leadership. Indeed, I asked Dr. Kay when he came before the committee in August: We know what went wrong. Could it have been a very different product? Could we have had a very different product in the NIE, if we had changes, organizationally, that we are speaking of? That is a question posed of Dr. Kay. He responded: It could have been a very different product, in my judgment. That is a very telling and significant statement. He said the national intelligence estimate, the estimate upon which we predicated war, upon which we made our decisions, based on the assessments that were included in that national intelligence estimate, could have been a very different product if we had an entirely different type of organization within the intelligence community. I happen to believe that creating a national intelligence director would also facilitate a better atmosphere of objectivity, an element that has been sorely lacking in the intelligence community. Separating the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from one specific organization would better allow the other 14 intelligence community agencies to be heard in the debates about the validity and veracity of intelligence information and analyses that have a direct effect on our national security. A director of national intelligence would level the playing field when it comes to the competition of ideas and intelligence analysis. Currently, as the head of both the CIA, as well as the intelligence community, the DCI is the principal intelligence adviser to the President. This provides the CIA with unique access to policymakers. Although the goal of this structure was to coordinate the disparate elements of the intelligence community in order to provide the most accurate and objective analysis, this report reveals that in practice this arrangement actually undermines the provision of objective analysis. Indeed, this committee's report on Iraq concluded: The CIA continues to excessively compartment sensitive human intelligence reporting and fails to share important information about [human intelligence] reporting and sources with Intelligence Community analysts who have a need to know. Further the report concluded that: The CIA, in several significant instances, abused its unique position in the [intelligence community], particularly in terms of information sharing, to the detriment of the [intelligence community's] prewar analysis concerning Iraq's [weapons of mass destruction] programs. One agency should not be able to control the presentation of information to policymakers, nor should an agency be able to exclude analyses from the other agencies. As the committee's report on the prewar intelligence on Iraq reveals, the Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of dissenting opinions within the intelligence community on the potential use for the aluminum tubes, despite the fact that the intelligence community had been debating the issue for well more than a year. Since the Director was not aware of all the views of the intelligence agencies, he could only pass on the CIA's view to the President. This has to change. Policymakers must be aware of all views of all intelligence agencies on such crucial matters. Some might say consolidating the leadership of the entire intelligence community under a national intelligence director might actually stifle healthy competition, that central planning will deprive decisionmakers of a full range of intelligence. I echo what Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton have said: Competitive analysis is very important . . . no one can claim that the current structure fosters competitive analysis. Look at the Senate report on group-think with regard to Iraq. The current system encourages, we believe, group-think. . . . In my view, to accomplish the task we have just discussed, the national intelligence director should be equipped with the authority commensurate with the responsibilities with which he is vested. We can no longer afford to have the Intelligence Committee unable to direct those resources. As the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission indicated--he said in response to another question I posed when he testified before the Intelligence Committee with regard to George Tenet raising the red flag about the threat from al-Qaida: . . . a problem we have of communication between agencies . . . one of the best illustrations that hit me when I first heard about it is in 1998, when [the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency] George Tenet got it. What we are suggesting, I guess, is if you had that coordination and that declaration of war had been made under the system we recommend, the military, the diplomatic side, the intelligence side, they all would have gotten it. If you can imagine when the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency had been talking about a major threat to the United States back in 1998, raising a red flag, going around Washington talking to whomever in order to get attention, to draw attention to this tremendous threat that al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden posed, that they were declaring war on the United States, and he could not get anyone's attention, never, ever again should we be in a position where the Director of Central Intelligence, now the director of the national intelligence community, should not be able to get the attention of the executive branch or of the Congress or of policymakers across the board within the intelligence community because he doesn't have the power to redirect resources or to redirect the attention or to make sure there is a collective focus on such a major threat. There are a number of authorities that this legislation before us will provide the national director of intelligence. I think it is absolutely vital and critical that the national intelligence director have strong authority to redirect resources with respect to budget and personnel. There is no question that we must have a director of national intelligence who is vested with the kind of power and authority to command a centralized organization. This is not just about moving boxes around. It is vesting the authority within this individual to command the direction of the resources and the decisionmaking that is absolutely vital to establish the kind of strategic thinking across the intelligence community that heretofore has not been present. Some have argued that providing the national intelligence director with these authorities equates to the loss of intelligence support to our warfighters. I do not dispute the fact that any successful intelligence reform must respect the military's necessity to maintain a robust organic tactical intelligence capability and to have rapid access to national intelligence assets and information. I would argue that providing the national intelligence director with the authorities commensurate to his responsibilities, by providing him the ability to better coordinate and manage the entirety of our Nation's intelligence operations, could improve national support to our military operations, both strategically as well as tactically. One of the national intelligence director's greatest responsibilities will be to secure national intelligence support to our warfighters and ensure that strategic information of tactical importance is expeditiously delivered to our soldiers, seamen, airmen and marines. There is no question but that the men and women of our Armed Forces deserve and must continue to receive the best, most timely actionable intelligence. So I believe that creating this position will also improve the accountability within the intelligence community, an issue that also has been a focus of mine for the past 20 years. I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in accountability during my 12 years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and as chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During the 99th Congress back in 1986, I worked to bring to the State Department an accountability review board as part of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986. I think about those times because accountability becomes a critical component as we ensure that our agencies are responsive to the threats that are posed to America, to Americans, to American interests here as well as abroad. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I look back to that time. That is why I think it so critical to ensure that in every phase of the new challenges that we are facing we also incorporate the kind of accountability that compels our policymakers, our officials, and agencies responsive to those threats. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I continue to see that there is a stunning lack of accountability within the community. The committee's review of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is replete with information-sharing failures, analytic failures, and collection failures. It is imperative that these failures, many of which were identified in the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, are not repeated. As former United Nations weapons inspector Dr. David Kay told the Intelligence Committee at one of our reform hearings, `` . . . intelligence reform without accountability will not achieve the objective we all share to avoid repeating the clearly avoidable tragedy of 9/11 and the equally avoidable failures in analysis that marked the Iraq WMD program.'' That is why back in 1986 we created an accountability review board in the State Department because of embassy security, because of the threat posed by terrorists back in the 1980s. We had the Inman Report in 1983, and we responded to that. We redesigned embassy security, both physical, perimeter security, intelligence security, and we didn't want any more lapses and failures in that regard. That is why we set up the accountability review board--so we can ensure that these measures put in place are implemented and strongly enforced. I think the same is true here. We have to ensure there will be accountability. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, there was a failure of information sharing among the agencies. Again, it was another lapse in failure among agencies. Even after 9/11 we are now examining failures again of information sharing--replete with failure. It seems to me that we have to redesign the system to ensure that we have the kind of accountability we should demand rightfully of those who are in positions of authority to implement these responsibilities and obligations. That is why I think it is critical that we incorporate these types of reforms which will be essential. I concluded after my examination of what went wrong with our pre-war assessment concerning Iraq's WMD program and the reality posed to the military phase of Iraq that one way to prevent these lapses in the future is to inject more accountability into the intelligence community. That is why I introduced legislation in June to create the office of inspector general for intelligence. The intelligence community lacks a single, overarching intelligence communitywide investigative entity that bridges the gap between and among all the various agencies in order to identify problem areas to ensure critical deficiencies are addressed before they become crises or tragedies, and to develop and ensure the implementation of the most efficient and effective methods of intelligence gathering and interpretation. What is required, in my view, is an inspector general for the entire intelligence community. The agencies now have their own individual inspector generals. But I happen to believe that this newly created office would assist in instituting better management accountability and would help the national intelligence director resolve problems within the intelligence community. I am very pleased that the legislation we are debating today includes--again I thank the leadership of the chair of the committee, Senator Collins, for including a provision to create an office of inspector general for the entire community. That inspector general has the ability to initiate and conduct independent investigations, including investigating current issues within the intelligence community, not just conduct ``lessons learned'' studies, not just a retrospective, but prospective to identify the problems that may be there, may be present in the intelligence community, and to have that strategic view of what is going wrong and make sure we can also prevent and preempt the problems before they take place. This new office will 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, and before lives are lost. In short, an inspector general who can look across the entire community will help improve management and coordination, and cooperation and information sharing among the intelligence agencies-- again, another dynamic that will help to ensure and enforce the kind of information sharing that clearly has been lacking up to this point. The inspector general also will help break down the barriers that have perpetuated the parochial, stovepipe approaches to intelligence community management and operations. Again, I commend the work of the authors of this underlying bill, Senator Collins for her dedication, and Senator Lieberman for working together to include this recommendation of creating the inspector general in the office of the national intelligence director. The authors of this bill have crafted extensive language creating and defining this vital agent of accountability. I look forward to further working with them to complete the creation of an independent IG, and to ensure that proper accountability to the director of the national intelligence, to the President and to Congress, and ultimately to the American people is carried forward. In addition, I hope I can work with the committee on several other issues and amendments to enhance this legislation. For example, as I have been reviewing this legislation, and as we look at the pre-war intelligence, it was apparent that the intelligence community relied on forces that supported this predetermined idea and found there was no alternative analysis or ``red teaming'' performed on critical issues, allowing assessments to go unchallenged year after year, and certainly for more than a decade with respect to Iraq. While this bill includes provisions for an analysis review unit, I also think we must consider the ability for the community to look at alternatives in that area as well. It is very important to have that type of dynamic within the intelligence community, to think out of the box, to think creatively and innovatively and not just be confined to the assumptions that have been carried over, to preconceived notions that were so inherent in all of the pre-war assessments with respect to Iraq's WMD program. This bill also mandates that the national intelligence council produce national intelligence estimates. I believe this process must be made a little more automatic and transparent and a little ad hoc. I believe that the national intelligence council should report to us what they can do to streamline that process. I also believe we should have the National Counterterrorism Center report to us in a year about what they are doing and whether they are meeting the mark. This bill already requires a report from the national director of intelligence. But I think it would also be important to hear from the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center the lessons learned in the establishment of capability before we move to set up other centers. The creation of a national intelligence director and improving the community's accountability through the creation of an inspector general are but two of the many issues in the ongoing debate on intelligence community reform. Indeed, it has been an extremely challenging year for the intelligence community and those who work in it, one in which we saw every aspect of the intelligence process come to the fore at one time or another. From the tactical collection and analysis of on-the-ground intelligence by our battlefield commanders in Iraq that led to the capture of Saddam Hussein, to the global search for the information that led to the exposure of Aq Khan's nuclear proliferation network, to the decision to commit troops to the field in Iraq, it became obvious to every American that timely and quality intelligence is imperative if we are to be successful in defeating the forces that have pledged themselves to the destruction of America. I think all of these events highlight how abundantly crucial it is to ensure that we have the leadership with the requisite authority to ensure that the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence information is as synchronized, accurate, and as comprehensive as it possibly can be, and that it represents the very best judgment of the intelligence community when it is provided to the national policymakers who rely on that information to make the most profound of decisions. Of course, intelligence reform must include reforming oversight of not only the intelligence community. Ideally, this should have occurred in tandem. Congress must not abrogate its responsibility to seriously tackle the oversight issue. As 9/11 Commissioner Lehman said, it is like one hand clapping, if you only do the executive branch this year. Hopefully we will be able to pursue those initiatives shortly as well. In the final analysis, it is apparent to me that the intelligence structure put in place over 50 years ago was one that focused primarily on developing intelligence to counter a military threat that is no longer sufficient for confronting the asymmetrical threats we are now confronting in the 21st century--a century in which our enemies no longer make distinctions between our battlefields and our backyards. So, therefore, we must develop a lighter and more agile intelligence capability that can keep pace with the kind of enemy we are now fighting--one that is elusive, one that does not need a large land- based military capability to bring the fight to us. This legislation will bring America the agility we require, the ability to reform our intelligence apparatus into an adaptable organization prepared to anticipate and prepare for future threats. I look forward to working with my colleague again, the Senator from Maine, who I congratulate again for bringing this most timely, this most forthright, comprehensive, very sound framework for intelligence reform and working with them on the issues I might propose with my refinements and enhancements to the underlying bill. I hope in due course of this week or the following week, however long it takes before we adjourn, to complete this process, to pass this legislation, not only in the Senate but the overall Congress, so the President can sign this legislation because clearly it must be done forthwith. This is something the American people and the future of this Nation deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in 1996, over eight years ago, the Senate passed without opposition the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA is a requirement that agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses meet the requirements of their regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have done a poor job of meeting this requirement. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulation. The GAO found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. GAO also found that the language of SBREFA is unclear in some places about what is actually required. That is why today I am introducing the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2004 to close those loopholes and make it clear that we were serious when we first told agencies we want them to produce quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses understand how to deal with regulations. My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce will be suggestion about how to meet a regulations requirements, not further requirements, or subject to enforcement. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then agencies will never achieve the impact their regulations must have to be effective. The key to helping small businesses comply is to provide assistance-- show them what is necessary and how they will be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or have the resources to figure out the answers to these questions. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that compliance with regulations cost small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 employees. If an agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This was the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was included in SBREFA originally, and this reason is just as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, my bill would do the following: Clarify when a guide is required: To clarify when an agency must prepare a compliance guide section 212 of SBREFA would be amended to require a guide whenever the agency does not certify the rule under section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code (i.e. whenever an agency determines that a rule will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''). This would avoid confusion about whether the agency should produce a compliance guide when the agency produces a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis voluntarily (i.e. even though the agency certified that the regulation would not have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''). Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 currently says that agencies must ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. This term would be changed to ``entitle.'' Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using online searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently says agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides available through their websites in an easily accessed way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not indicate when the compliance guides should be published. This means that even if an agency was required to produce a compliance guide, they can claim that they have not violated that requirement since there is no deadline established for when they had to produce that guide. Agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides coincident with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, this term means what a small business has to do to satisfy the regulation, and when they will know they have met these requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the requirements. If, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing would be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. It is time we got serious about making sure small businesses have the assistance they need to deal with the maze of federal regulations we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act will make a significant contribution to that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the tax bill before the Senate that would extend certain tax provisions set to expire this year. Let me say that I support the policy underlying the tax measures contained in this conference report. What I find regrettable, however, is that we are even at this juncture where we are faced essentially with a choice between these tax reductions and fiscal responsibility-- when, in fact, we could have achieved both. Instead, we have before us a tax package that will directly add $146 billion to the Federal deficit. Why? Because the 2003 tax package sunset after one year rightfully popular measures of benefit to middle- class and lower income Americans--that also provided short term economic stimulus--this year, in order to pay for other tax reductions over 5 years that are not geared toward short-term stimulus. As a result, here we are, about to enact 5 years of $146 billion in tax reductions over and above the $350 billion we passed last year--when we could have provided for 5 years of these same, worthy tax cut measures with last year's $350 billion package. I supported the $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax relief plan of 2001 because, at that time, the tax burden was the highest it had been since World War II--and also to provide an ``insurance policy,'' to paraphrase Chairman Greenspan, against a more prolonged economic recession that we now know began six months before President Bush took office. Then, in 2003, an effort was made to accelerate some of the tax relief from the 2001 bill--specifically, lower marginal tax rates, marriage penalty relief, and the $1,000 child tax credit. Indeed, over a year ago, Senator Lincoln and I--along with others on the Senate Finance Committee--worked to correct a glaring flaw in the 2003 tax bill. Specifically, while the 2003 tax bill accelerated the phase-in of lower marginal rates, the $1,000 child tax credit and other provisions, it did not accelerate a scheduled increase in the percentage amount of the child tax credit that is refundable for lower-income workers. The motivating force behind the vehicle before us was to accelerate an increase in the portion of the child tax credit for lower-income families that were left behind in the final 2003 tax bill. I would very much have preferred to have been able to vote to have those accelerations in place without a sunset in last year's tax package conference report. And, again, I would very much like to vote this year to extend these three tax cuts as prescribed by this conference report. Indeed, last year during Finance Committee markup of the bill, I developed a means by which we could pass these tax cut accelerations through 2010 while limiting the total impact to the amount agreed to in the budget resolution. Regrettably, however, while we were successful last year in the Finance Committee in passing these three tax reductions as part of the $350 billion package I supported in committee, the responsible path was ultimately not taken in the conference report. Unfortunately, the final 2003 tax bill scaled back the tax relief for working families by imposing a sunset on the most popular tax cuts, forcing them to expire at the end of this year. Moreover, the 1-year sunset of these incentives was done solely to allow for a larger tax cut on dividend income within the $350 billion cost of the package. I said at the time that the action Congress inevitably will take on the popular tax cuts after that year elapses will result in a true cost of the 2003 tax bill far in excess of $350 billion and closer to an estimated trillion dollars. Today, Congress is in fact about to increasse that cost to $496 billion. It could have been otherwise--and indeed, I have offered several alternatives this year. In July, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in putting forward a plan to extend these middle-class tax provisions with no net cost to the Government. The revenue offsets that we put forward are ones that both the Senate and the House have passed previously. Regrettably, that approach has been rejected in favor of the view that any provision that increases revenues, even if it improves the efficiency of the Tax Code, cannot be acceptable. Fiscal responsibility and reducing taxes do not have to be mutually exclusive goals. Yet, unfortunately, what is before us today is a $146 billion bill--none of which is paid for. Again, I support these tax provisions, but I cannot vote for a proposal that rejects the available, responsible alternatives. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in 1996, over eight years ago, the Senate passed without opposition the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to make the Regulatory Flexibility Act more effective in curtailing the impact of regulations on small businesses. One of the most important provisions of SBREFA is a requirement that agencies produce compliance assistance materials to help small businesses meet the requirements of their regulations. Unfortunately, over the years, agencies have done a poor job of meeting this requirement. Consequently, small businesses have been forced to figure out on their own how to comply with these regulations. This makes compliance that much more difficult to achieve, and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the regulation. The GAO found that agencies have ignored this requirement or failed miserably in their attempts to satisfy it. GAO also found that the language of SBREFA is unclear in some places about what is actually required. That is why today I am introducing the Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act of 2004 to close those loopholes and make it clear that we were serious when we first told agencies we want them to produce quality compliance assistance materials to help small businesses understand how to deal with regulations. My bill is drawn directly from the GAO recommendations and is intended only to clarify an already existing requirement--not to add anything new. Similarly, the compliance guides that the agencies will produce will be suggestion about how to meet a regulations requirements, not further requirements, or subject to enforcement. Nor does this bill, in any way, interfere or undercut an agency's ability to enforce its regulations to the full extent they currently enjoy. Bad actors must be brought to justice, but if the only trigger for compliance is the threat of enforcement, then agencies will never achieve the impact their regulations must have to be effective. The key to helping small businesses comply is to provide assistance-- show them what is necessary and how they will be able to tell when they have met their obligations. Too often, small businesses do not maintain the staff, or have the resources to figure out the answers to these questions. This puts them at a disadvantage compared to larger businesses, and reduces the effectiveness of the agency's regulations. SBA's Office of Advocacy has determined that compliance with regulations cost small businesses with less than 20 employees almost $7,000 per employee, compared to almost $4,500 for companies with more than 500 employees. If an agency cannot describe how to comply with its regulation, how can we expect a small business to figure it out? This was the reason the requirement to provide compliance assistance was included in SBREFA originally, and this reason is just as valid today as it was in 1996. Specifically, my bill would do the following: Clarify when a guide is required: To clarify when an agency must prepare a compliance guide section 212 of SBREFA would be amended to require a guide whenever the agency does not certify the rule under section 605(b) of title 5, United States Code (i.e. whenever an agency determines that a rule will have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''). This would avoid confusion about whether the agency should produce a compliance guide when the agency produces a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis voluntarily (i.e. even though the agency certified that the regulation would not have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''). Clarify how a guide shall be designated: Section 212 currently says that agencies must ``designate'' the publications prepared under the section as small entity compliance guides. However, the form in which those designations should occur is not clear. This term would be changed to ``entitle.'' Consistent use of the phrase ``Small Entity Compliance Guide'' in the title could make it easier for small entities to locate the guides that the agencies develop. This would also aid in using online searches--a technology that was not widely used when SBREFA was passed. Thus, agencies would be directed to publish guides entitled ``Small Entity Compliance Guide.'' Clarify how a guide shall be published: Section 212 currently says agencies ``shall publish'' the guides, but does not indicate where or how they should be published. At least one agency has published the guides as part of the preamble to the subject rule, thereby requiring affected small entities to read the Federal Register to obtain the guides. Agencies would be directed, at a minimum, to make their compliance guides available through their websites in an easily accessed way. In addition, agencies would be directed to forward their compliance guides to known industry contacts such as small businesses or associations with small business members that will be affected by the regulation. Clarify when a guide shall be published: Section 212 does not indicate when the compliance guides should be published. This means that even if an agency was required to produce a compliance guide, they can claim that they have not violated that requirement since there is no deadline established for when they had to produce that guide. Agencies would be instructed to publish the compliance guides coincident with, or as soon as possible after, the final rule is published, provided that the guides must be published no later than the effective date of the rule's compliance requirements. Clarify the term ``compliance requirements'': The term ``compliance requirements'' also needs to be clarified. At a minimum, this term means what a small business has to do to satisfy the regulation, and when they will know they have met these requirements. This should include a description of the procedures a small business might use to meet the requirements. If, as is the case with many OSHA and EPA regulations, testing is required, the agency should explain how that testing would be conducted. The bill makes clear that the procedural description should be merely suggestive--an agency would not be able to enforce this procedure if a small business was able to satisfy the requirements through a different approach. It is time we got serious about making sure small businesses have the assistance they need to deal with the maze of federal regulations we expect them to handle on a daily basis. The Small Business Compliance Assistance Enhancement Act will make a significant contribution to that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Fifteen minutes. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the nomination of Porter Goss as our next Director of Central Intelligence. I commend the President for his timely submission of this nomination as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Given our war on terror and the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, now is not the time to leave a vacuum in leadership for our Nation's intelligence. On that note, I also commend our chairman, Senator Roberts, for his leadership in conducting the hearings and shepherding the entire process so we can complete this confirmation and ensure our intelligence apparatus has the direction it deserves and the leadership it must have in order to move forward. As we all know, this nomination arrived during a time in which we are compelled to undertake the most profound, sweeping reform of our entire intelligence community in nearly 60 years, 3 years after the worst attack ever on American soil. Indeed, there is no longer a question whether we are at the threshold of the single most comprehensive and critical restructuring of the manner in which intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and disseminated in at least a generation. The questions are: What shape will this reform take? How will the leadership of the intelligence community implement and execute these changes? And how will the nominee, Porter Goss, synthesize and translate his knowledge and depth of experience into specific, tangible changes in how the intelligence community performs? Because the person who is asked to implement this type of reform must be firm, bold, visionary, and lay the foundation for our intelligence community for the 21st century. Many of us who serve on the Intelligence Committee--indeed, throughout the Senate--have been advocating for comprehensive improvements in the intelligence community structures and methods. Shortly, the Senate will have the opportunity to deliberate with respect to overall and fundamental reform. It is absolutely the type of change and reform not only this Senate, this Congress, and the President must embrace; this permanent reform is essential to address the grave failures in communication, coordination, and cooperation that certainly the 9/11 Joint Inquiry, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission, and others have found with respect to the attacks on September 11, 2001, as well as the pre-Iraq-war assessment of weapons of mass destruction that failed to reconcile with the realities in the postwar chapter. Indeed, with the new reality in which we live, delaying reforming the intelligence community is no longer an option. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, this last year we have undertaken a major review of the prewar intelligence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the regime's ties to terrorism, Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses, and his regime's impact on regional stability. That report was a detailed, comprehensive cataloguing not only of the facts but also a stunning revelation of systemic, pervasive flaws in our intelligence community that coalesced to produce broad failures in intelligence gathering and analysis. It revealed a pervasive complacency as well as a lack of accountability throughout the chain of command that allowed outdated assumptions about intelligence to be carried forward for years unquestioned and that tolerated an absence of rigorous analysis and a kind of monolithic grouping. From that report, we now know that even after the lack of information sharing was found to have played a key role in the intelligence failures of 9/11, intelligence reporting continues to be highly compartmentalized, and analysts with a need to know are not given access to information. Essentially, the intelligence community continues to operate in a ``stovepiped'' manner, preventing critical information sharing essential for sound analysis. There was a lack of analytic rigor on one of the most critical and defining issues spanning more than a decade: the question of the preponderance of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. The community had failed to do its analysis for more than a decade, we soon discovered. Moreover, there was a lack of human intelligence that is so critical to assessing the enemy's capabilities and intentions. They were forced to rely on outdated, vague intelligence from less than credible sources. I say all of this because that is the reality that our next Director of Central Intelligence must not only confront, but he also must address. It is in that light that our committee, during the confirmation process, reviewed the qualifications, the credentials, and the qualities that Porter Goss possesses in order to address some of the most systemic and profound changes this intelligence community is going to face since its inception in 1947. I have come to believe that Porter Goss, in examining his record, his testimony before the committee, his responses to the committee, has the experience, the character, the credibility, the knowledge, the disposition, and the predilection for reform to lead this comprehensive overhaul and restructuring of our entire intelligence community. Let me first say that I worked with Congressman Goss in the House of Representatives for 6 years. I have no doubt about his competence, certainly his intelligence, his character, his unimpeachable integrity, or his bipartisanship. He was far from a polarizing or partisan force in the House of Representatives. Rather, what I discovered in working with him in the House, he was interested in solving problems rather than creating political points or sound bites. He was interested in reaching a consensus on the issues. I know there had been some questions during the course of the hearing as to whether Porter Goss would be able to be sufficiently independent minded in a position where he will be the President's chief adviser on intelligence issues. Certainly this was an issue that was thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearings just concluded. At the opening of that hearing, Congressman Goss addressed the issue directly when he told the committee: . . . I understand completely the difference in obligations the position of [director of Central Intelligence agency] carries with it and that which the role of a Congressman carries. These are two completely distinct jobs in our form of government. I understand these distinctions and if confirmed commit myself to a nonpartisan approach to the job of [director of Central Intelligence agency]. That is important to underscore. Moreover, in response to questions about some specific political statements that Porter Goss had mentioned a few months ago on the floor of the House of Representatives, he expressed regret and apologized if he sounded any partisan notes in the past on any issues or matters of national security. I know others have raised the question of whether Porter Goss will be willing to inform administration officials if or when public statements deviate from or distort available intelligence. In responding to this question, I would refer directly to the House Intelligence Committee's 2003 interim assessment of the pre-Iraq-war intelligence when then- Chairman Goss stated that if public officials cite intelligence incorrectly, the intelligence community has a responsibility to address that policymaker on any mischaracterization of available intelligence. I expect that not only would Porter Goss be held to that assessment as DCI but that he would hold himself to that assessment. We must also recognize the unique qualifications that Porter Goss brings to the position. As I mentioned earlier, he is a product of service in the intelligence community, while he also later served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He can view the intelligence community through the eyes of a former CIA officer and intelligence officer and also as someone who has stood outside of that world looking in with his oversight of the intelligence apparatus as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. I know there has been some concern expressed that maybe Porter Goss will be too wedded to the CIA or that he is too CIA-centric and, therefore, would not have the independent vision necessary to institute the required changes and the reforms that surely are to come. I would argue that it is precisely because of his past work within the community that he is best suited to take it into the future, all the more so as his service imbues him with an indispensable credibility that would engender the kind of trust within a community where some continue to believe that necessary changes have already been made, that we should not identify the failures that we did in our comprehensive report within the intelligence community in the prewar assessments as egregious or systemic or broad or comprehensive failures. That is the kind of atmosphere that he will be entering as the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and trying to bring about the kind of reform that is absolutely vital. His own record of reform initiatives is also important to explore because it also will belie the claim that somehow he will not be predisposed or have a predilection for the type of reform we certainly are going to be considering, hopefully next week, and enacting in Congress, and also the reform that has also been brought about as a result of the President's Executive orders. Still others have questioned whether Porter Goss could have done more to institute intelligence reform prior to the attacks of 9/11. Again, I think as we review the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, we can see much could have been done in all spheres. Whether it was on the part of former Presidents, on the part of Congress, committees, individuals, agencies, and bureaucracies, we know that the history documented in the 9/11 report was replete with examples of what could have been and should have been done differently. What is required now is that we look at the totality of the record of the nominee we are considering today. In so doing, I believe we will see an individual who is wholly committed to providing the impetus and the leadership required to institute critical reform. Indeed, who better than someone who has not only been a member of the intelligence world but also one who has investigated that world to understand why change is necessary. The most glaring of problems--those we identified in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, such as the poor state of human intelligence, operations, intelligence collection in general, analysis, and the pervasive problems with information sharing--these have all been issues that Porter Goss has been committed to addressing throughout his tenure as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Indeed, Mr. Goss has held over 62 hearings on intelligence community reform just this year. So I do believe that he shows a predisposition and indeed a drive for reform. I think we also see that commitment reflected in Mr. Goss's contributions as a member of the Aspin-Brown commission, which was formed to assess the future direction, priorities, and structure of the intelligence community in the post-Cold-War world. This commission made a number of recommendations including looking at how to streamline the DCI's responsibilities and provide him with additional flexibility in managing the community. He provided insights and leadership in the ``Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001''--a report that contained 19 recommendations, including the creation of a director of national intelligence among the many changes that we have now been debating in Congress. So all of this undoubtedly served as a catalyst for Congressman Goss authoring his own reform legislation, which he introduced this past June, that calls for significant reform of the intelligence community's structure, as well as enhanced DCI, with critically needed personnel and budgetary authority--going beyond even what the President issued in his own Executive orders. But I think Porter Goss also understands, in response to many of the questions that were raised during the course of the confirmation hearing, that a director of national intelligence will need to possess both the budgetary and personnel authorities that will be vital to a newly created director of national intelligence in order for that individual to be effective in implementing the kinds of changes that need to be brought about within the overall intelligence community. Finally, there is further evidence of the extent to which Porter Goss is compelled to remedy our intelligence shortcomings. He has recognized--after his committee's investigation into the failures that occurred prior to the Iraq war--that the intelligence community has repeatedly fallen short in the area of information collection, most notably in the area of human intelligence. For those who are not convinced he understands what is required to be done--particularly in this regard--as Porter Goss himself has said, the CIA's human spy operation was headed ``over a proverbial cliff'' and in danger of becoming only a fleeting memory of ``the nimble, flexible, core, mission-oriented enterprise'' it once was. Sounds like a person who is convinced of the need for change. He has also stated that the intelligence community failed to provide the best possible intelligence to policymakers, and that the requisite, both from a collection and analytical viewpoint, was not provided. I believe Porter Goss embodies the credibility and credentials that will be required to lead the intelligence community agencies and the professionals within that community in implementing the types of reforms from within--by Executive order or through congressional enactment. He brings unique and exceptional experience both in the field and behind the gavel. I believe he is well prepared to see our intelligence apparatus as it undergoes the major transformation necessary for a new era. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. About 12 minutes. And I would like to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004,'' that reauthorizes programs administered by the Small Business Administration under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and contains significant improvements to SBA programs. I am confident that the bill before us will accelerate our efforts to work with the other body to resolve outstanding issues that are blocking passage of a larger Small Business Administration reauthorization bill. It is my hope Congress can send a final bill to help small businesses to the President for signature before the close of the 108th Congress. The bill before us contains many provisions that are substantively similar to the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S. 1375, which was passed by the Senate on September 26, 2003. The fundamental purpose of the SBA is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out the mandates set forth by Congress 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 the small business. This bill I introduce today builds on those changes. 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. SBA's 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. In this 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's 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 thus far in the current fiscal year its loan and venture capital programs have provided small businesses with $19.7 billion in various forms of financing, and have allowed small businesses to create or retain 716,144 jobs. In my home State of Maine, almost 2,500 SBA loans have been made since 1999, for a total of over $288 million, to small businesses that might not have qualified for loans through lending channels not supported by the SBA. Each year, there are 3 to 4 million new business start-ups and one in 25 adult Americans are taking steps to start a business. These small business owners now want to make plans for the future, including decisions that will create approximately two-thirds of all net new jobs and help sustain local communities, according to a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business. Over the last five 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. The SBA also estimates that reauthorizing the agency will result in the creation or retention of an estimated 3.3 million jobs over the next 5 years. During that same period, the SBA and its programs are predicted to support over 1 million jobs through prime contracts and subcontracts. In September 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that I had introduced to reauthorize for 3 years the SBA and its programs, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. However, the other body has been stalled for almost a year in its consideration of legislation to reauthorize the SBA. In a highly competitive and dynamic economy, too much is at stake for small firms, and the economy as a whole, to let this legislation languish. With passage of a new multi-year reauthorization bill, we will ensure that the SBA is well-positioned to help small businesses. Clearly, this is not the time to delay legislation that directly benefits the backbone of our economy, and our hope for the future--the small firms that are most responsible for putting people to work. With the close of the 108th Congress rapidly approaching, the time to act is now! I urge my colleagues to support this bill for the benefit of small businesses, our economy, and our Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Reauthorization and Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004,'' that reauthorizes programs administered by the Small Business Administration under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and contains significant improvements to SBA programs. I am confident that the bill before us will accelerate our efforts to work with the other body to resolve outstanding issues that are blocking passage of a larger Small Business Administration reauthorization bill. It is my hope Congress can send a final bill to help small businesses to the President for signature before the close of the 108th Congress. The bill before us contains many provisions that are substantively similar to the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S. 1375, which was passed by the Senate on September 26, 2003. The fundamental purpose of the SBA is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The methods for carrying out the mandates set forth by Congress 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 the small business. This bill I introduce today builds on those changes. 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. SBA's 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. In this 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's 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 thus far in the current fiscal year its loan and venture capital programs have provided small businesses with $19.7 billion in various forms of financing, and have allowed small businesses to create or retain 716,144 jobs. In my home State of Maine, almost 2,500 SBA loans have been made since 1999, for a total of over $288 million, to small businesses that might not have qualified for loans through lending channels not supported by the SBA. Each year, there are 3 to 4 million new business start-ups and one in 25 adult Americans are taking steps to start a business. These small business owners now want to make plans for the future, including decisions that will create approximately two-thirds of all net new jobs and help sustain local communities, according to a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business. Over the last five 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. The SBA also estimates that reauthorizing the agency will result in the creation or retention of an estimated 3.3 million jobs over the next 5 years. During that same period, the SBA and its programs are predicted to support over 1 million jobs through prime contracts and subcontracts. In September 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that I had introduced to reauthorize for 3 years the SBA and its programs, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003. However, the other body has been stalled for almost a year in its consideration of legislation to reauthorize the SBA. In a highly competitive and dynamic economy, too much is at stake for small firms, and the economy as a whole, to let this legislation languish. With passage of a new multi-year reauthorization bill, we will ensure that the SBA is well-positioned to help small businesses. Clearly, this is not the time to delay legislation that directly benefits the backbone of our economy, and our hope for the future--the small firms that are most responsible for putting people to work. With the close of the 108th Congress rapidly approaching, the time to act is now! I urge my colleagues to support this bill for the benefit of small businesses, our economy, and our Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address H.R. 5008, a bill to provide a temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and to enhance the operations of the Small Business Administration. The bill before us would extend until September 30, 2004, SBA programs that have expired. In addition, it would provide clarification as to the SBA's method of reimbursing its Fiscal and Transfer Agent, which assists in the operation of the SBA's vital loan programs. In July 2004 I introduced S. 2700, a bill that extended these same SBA programs and also provided this clarification regarding the Fiscal and Transfer Agent. The Senate unanimously approved S. 2700 on July 20, but unfortunately the other body failed to pass that bill, leaving many critical small business assistance programs unauthorized. Today, we have another opportunity to renew these programs and to provide this legislative improvement, and we should not miss the chance. 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's current loan portfolio of more than 175,000 loans, worth more than $45 billion, makes it the largest single supporter of small businesses in the country. According to the SBA, the $65.5 billion awarded to small businesses in Federal prime and subcontracts in FY 2003 allowed small businesses to create or retain close to 500,000 jobs. Over the last five years the SBA's programs and services have helped create and retain over 6.2 million jobs. The Senate agreed unanimously in September 2003 to pass a bill I introduced, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, to authorize the entire SBA for a three- year period. However, we have been unable to reauthorize the SBA because the other body has been stalled in its consideration of SBA authorization legislation. According to the SBA, reauthorizing the agency will result in an estimated 3.3 million jobs created or retained over the next 5 years, with the SBA and its programs predicted to support over 1 million additional jobs over that same period through prime contracts and subcontracts. In the absence of a full reauthorization of the Agency, which I am still working to bring about, it is vital that we extend those programs that can provide current assistance to small businesses. The bill before us, H.R. 5008, would renew the authorization for several SBA programs, including the Preferred Surety Bond Program. This program provides an essential service to small businesses by guaranteeing surety bonds for small business contracts, thereby permitting small businesses to undertake thousands of projects which would otherwise be out of reach. H.R. 5008 would also specify the manner in which the SBA may compensate its Fiscal and Transfer Agent. This agent administers payments and fee collection in the SBA's loan programs and in the secondary market for those loans. This legislative change, requested by the administration in its budget submission to Congress for Fiscal Year 2005, would provide guidance as to the SBA's method of compensating its agent. Additionally, this legislation will preserve the operations of existing Women's Business Center that currently serve women entrepreneurs in almost every State and territory. Today, more than 10.6 million women-owned small businesses are helping to fuel our economic recovery: they employ over 19 million Americans and contribute $2.46 trillion in revenues. In my home State of Maine, there are more than 63,000 women-owned firms, generating more than $9 billion in sales. Numbers like these speak for themselves, and are clear evidence of the success of the Women's Business Centers Program. Moreover, according to research, between 2001 and 2003, women's business center clients reported starting over 6,600 new firms and creating more than 12,000 new jobs. Mr. President, without this legislation, many of the Centers may be in jeopardy of closing their doors. This would be a significant loss, given that some of these Centers have proven to be powerful engines of economic development in communities across the Nation. As we work toward the larger goal of a full reauthorization of the SBA, I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of H.R. 5008. This legislation would allow essential SBA programs to continue to assist small businesses during the remainder of this Fiscal Year. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I respectfully request that the attached bill be printed in the Record as introduced. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Rob Weissert at 4-0216.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. Since the Coast Guard was last authorized in 2002 as part of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, its responsibilities and needs have continued to evolve. Last year I introduced the Senate Coast Guard Authorization bill (S. 733), the underlying bill of this conference report, to address many of these concerns. We have successfully finished this critical conference and I strongly believe we need to move forward expeditiously and pass this conference report as soon as possible so that we can provide the Coast Guard with the authorization bill it desperately needs. In April, as Chair of the Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard subcommittee, I held a hearing to examine the Coast Guard's readiness concerns; review the challenges it faces in balancing its homeland security and traditional missions; and ensure that we provide this service with the fiscal year 2005 budget it needs to carry out all of its many responsibilities. During this hearing the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Collins, presented a stark picture of his service's increasing maintenance costs. I was struck by Admiral Collins' testimony as he laid out the depths of the legacy asset sustainment problems faced by the Coast Guard. I am greatly concerned about the toll such a high operational tempo is taking on his antiquated ships and aircraft and ultimately on his personnel. The conference report we are considering will provide many important authorizations for the Coast Guard. First and foremost, it would authorize the funding and personnel levels it needs. In recent years we have seen an unprecedented growth in the Coast Guard's budget--more than 30 percent over the past 2 years alone--but this has not been enough. We must provide the Coast Guard with the funding it needs to restore its non-homeland security missions--such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection--to near their pre-September 11th levels. Additionally, while we have increased the number of Coast Guard personnel by more than 4,000, we have not raised the statutory cap on its authorized number of officers. We are rectifying this before the Coast Guard reaches its cap and is forced to terminate reserve officer contracts or delay some officer's deserved commissions and promotions. The Conference report raises this cap to 6,700 and prevents the Coast Guard from being forced to implement these drastic measures which would unfairly impact individual officers. Secondly, we all know that the Coast Guard currently operates the third oldest of the world's 39 similar naval fleets with several cutters dating back to World War II. The administration's fiscal year 2005 request would put this program on a 22-year time line, which is 2 years behind the original 20-year plans. This is simply not acceptable. I strongly believe that we must authorize the acceleration of this critical program because it is the best and most cost effective way to remedy the Coast Guard's readiness problems and provide it with the tools it needs to carry out all of its missions. That is why, I am extremely pleased with the $1.1 billion authorization for the Deepwater program in this Conference report, which if fully funded, will accelerate the program to a 15-year time line. This conference report also provides many non-controversial provisions which improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses personnel management and quality of life issues by providing for a critical skills training bonus, retaining commissioned officers with essential skill sets and experiences, expanding property authorities to ease housing shortages, and includes several measures that grant parity with the other Armed Services. There are also many provisions requested by the administration regarding Law Enforcement, Marine Safety, and Environmental Protection which allow the Coast Guard to better accomplish its many missions. This conference report was crafted in a bi-partisan fashion and it provides the Coast Guard with a solid foundation to do its job. I thank all of the Members who have actively participated in its development. I am proud to give the Coast Guard my full support, and the resources it needs to carry out its many essential missions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I respectfully request that the attached bill be printed in the Record as introduced. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Rob Weissert at 4-0216.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that could make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality by deauthorizing a section of the Federal Navigational Channel that will allow a windjammer wharf to be built. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Midcoast. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways. The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capitol of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the City and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes--a three-masted, gaff-rigged schooner whose National Historic Landmark designation I supported in 1997, and one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf--graces the 2003 Maine quarter! This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience. Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers. The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic gains for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million a year in the State. My hope is that the legislation I am introducing today can be included in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), S 2554, which has been marked up by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and awaits floor action. I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the state ferry line, and the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and businesspeople with the vision and commitment we need to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor. My legislation is important to the entire Rockland area, to the economy of my State of Maine, and important as a living history of a long held tradition in the Northeastern part of the country bordering the Atlantic Ocean where eyes have traditionally turned to the sea, fixed on hope and the horizon, and a way of life.