Olympia Snowe

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I hope will be the first in a series of proposals to simplify the tax code for small business owners. Once enacted, these provisions will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but that they also will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies in trying to meet this obligation. The proposal that I am introducing today, will simplify the tax code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn less than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome record keeping requirements that currently require them to use a different accounting method to report their income. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical to begin considering ways to simplify the tax code. As you know, small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. Yet, the despite the fact that small businesses are the real job- creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes an unreasonable burden on small businesses attempting to comply with the current tax code. This code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying reporting and record-keeping obligations, but small businesses are disadvantaged most, even more than large companies, in terms of money and time spent satisfying their tax obligations. For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend more than 8 billion hours each year filing-out government reports, and they spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $6,975 per employee in tax compliance costs--nearly 60 percent more than companies with more than 500 employees spend. These statistics are disconcerting for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have less earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which, unfortunately, has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the inordinate amount of time small business owners are forced to devote to the completion of paperwork means they have less time to spend doing what they do best-namely running their business and creating jobs. I do not mean to suggest that the challenges small business confront in regard to tax reporting and compliance are unique to this group, or that these companies should receive a free pass. In order to benefit from the freedoms and protections that our great country provides, individuals and businesses alike are required to pay taxes, and this duty carries with it certain administrative and opportunity costs. What I am asking for is a fairer, simpler tax code that allows small companies to satisfy their obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently, resources that might be invested in more productive ways. For that reason, the package of proposals that I will be introducing will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, it will also seek to simplify existing rules under the tax code. By simplifying the tax code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a less costly, more efficient manner, allowing them to devote more time and resources to their primary business goals. As I mentioned earlier, the provision that I am introducing today will permit more taxpayers to use the cash method of accounting, as opposed to depending on accrual or other hybrid method. The same law I referenced earlier which currently permits only those taxpayers earning less than $5 million in gross receipts during the tax year to use the cash method in reporting their income also precludes taxpayers in possession of inventory from using the simpler cash method. As a result, thousands of small businesses which possess inventories, but which might otherwise be entitled to report their income and expenses under the cash method of accounting are also required to follow the accrual or some sort of hybrid accounting method. The result, once more, is the imposition of undue financial hardship and unreasonable administrative burdens. My bill changes these existing rules, increasing the gross receipts test under current law to $10 million for small businesses and indexing this higher threshold to account for inflation. Given that the current $5 million threshold, it makes little sense to preserve an outdated benchmark in this most important provision when the sensible adjustment that I propose will allow thousands of small businesses presently hobbled by unnecessary paperwork to use the cash method of accounting. My bill also changes current law to permit even those taxpayers with inventory to qualify for the cash method of accounting. It is important to note, however, that my bill will not simply give these taxpayers an opportunity to recover costs associated with these otherwise inventoriable assets in the year of purchase, but that the bill will require these taxpayers to account for such costs as if they were a material or supply that is not incidental. This standard already exists under current law, and it is one with which most small businesses are already familiar. As such, this less-burdensome standard should ease the existing compliance burden for eligible taxpayers and allow them to devote more time and resources to their business. Very importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a small business pays by even one dollar. Indeed, the overall amount of taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. Rather, this bill simply permits more taxpayers to report income and account for costs in the year of the receipt or expenditure. Clearly, this method makes compliance easier and simpler for small taxpayers, and it will reduce both the time and monetary expenditures spent today to comply with the current tax code. Finally, this proposal is revenue neutral. In addition to the provision that modifies the income tax rules, my bill would enact Federal legislation to stop an abusive tax shelter that exists currently whereby taxpayers avoid State unemployment taxes. Specifically, States would be required to enact laws that prevent the avoidance of State unemployment tax and that also impose penalties on taxpayers and their advisors who engage in these scams. Consequently, my bill provides a revenue-neutral proposal that simplifies the tax code for small business owners by cracking down on taxpayers who otherwise try to avoid their State unemployment tax obligations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill I hope will be the first in a series of proposals to simplify the tax code for small business owners. Once enacted, these provisions will reduce not only the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but that they also will reduce the administrative burden that saddles small companies in trying to meet this obligation. The proposal that I am introducing today, will simplify the tax code by permitting small business owners to use the cash method of accounting for reporting their income if they generally earn less than $10 million during the tax year. Currently, only those taxpayers that earn less than $5 million per year are able to use the cash method. By increasing this threshold to $10 million, more small businesses will be relieved of the burdensome record keeping requirements that currently require them to use a different accounting method to report their income. Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical to begin considering ways to simplify the tax code. As you know, small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output. Yet, the despite the fact that small businesses are the real job- creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes an unreasonable burden on small businesses attempting to comply with the current tax code. This code imposes a large, and expensive, burden on all taxpayers in terms of satisfying reporting and record-keeping obligations, but small businesses are disadvantaged most, even more than large companies, in terms of money and time spent satisfying their tax obligations. For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend more than 8 billion hours each year filing-out government reports, and they spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $6,975 per employee in tax compliance costs--nearly 60 percent more than companies with more than 500 employees spend. These statistics are disconcerting for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have less earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which, unfortunately, has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole. Second, the inordinate amount of time small business owners are forced to devote to the completion of paperwork means they have less time to spend doing what they do best-namely running their business and creating jobs. I do not mean to suggest that the challenges small business confront in regard to tax reporting and compliance are unique to this group, or that these companies should receive a free pass. In order to benefit from the freedoms and protections that our great country provides, individuals and businesses alike are required to pay taxes, and this duty carries with it certain administrative and opportunity costs. What I am asking for is a fairer, simpler tax code that allows small companies to satisfy their obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently, resources that might be invested in more productive ways. For that reason, the package of proposals that I will be introducing will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners, it will also seek to simplify existing rules under the tax code. By simplifying the tax code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a less costly, more efficient manner, allowing them to devote more time and resources to their primary business goals. As I mentioned earlier, the provision that I am introducing today will permit more taxpayers to use the cash method of accounting, as opposed to depending on accrual or other hybrid method. The same law I referenced earlier which currently permits only those taxpayers earning less than $5 million in gross receipts during the tax year to use the cash method in reporting their income also precludes taxpayers in possession of inventory from using the simpler cash method. As a result, thousands of small businesses which possess inventories, but which might otherwise be entitled to report their income and expenses under the cash method of accounting are also required to follow the accrual or some sort of hybrid accounting method. The result, once more, is the imposition of undue financial hardship and unreasonable administrative burdens. My bill changes these existing rules, increasing the gross receipts test under current law to $10 million for small businesses and indexing this higher threshold to account for inflation. Given that the current $5 million threshold, it makes little sense to preserve an outdated benchmark in this most important provision when the sensible adjustment that I propose will allow thousands of small businesses presently hobbled by unnecessary paperwork to use the cash method of accounting. My bill also changes current law to permit even those taxpayers with inventory to qualify for the cash method of accounting. It is important to note, however, that my bill will not simply give these taxpayers an opportunity to recover costs associated with these otherwise inventoriable assets in the year of purchase, but that the bill will require these taxpayers to account for such costs as if they were a material or supply that is not incidental. This standard already exists under current law, and it is one with which most small businesses are already familiar. As such, this less-burdensome standard should ease the existing compliance burden for eligible taxpayers and allow them to devote more time and resources to their business. Very importantly, these changes will not reduce the amount of taxes a small business pays by even one dollar. Indeed, the overall amount of taxes a qualifying small business pays will remain the same. Rather, this bill simply permits more taxpayers to report income and account for costs in the year of the receipt or expenditure. Clearly, this method makes compliance easier and simpler for small taxpayers, and it will reduce both the time and monetary expenditures spent today to comply with the current tax code. Finally, this proposal is revenue neutral. In addition to the provision that modifies the income tax rules, my bill would enact Federal legislation to stop an abusive tax shelter that exists currently whereby taxpayers avoid State unemployment taxes. Specifically, States would be required to enact laws that prevent the avoidance of State unemployment tax and that also impose penalties on taxpayers and their advisors who engage in these scams. Consequently, my bill provides a revenue-neutral proposal that simplifies the tax code for small business owners by cracking down on taxpayers who otherwise try to avoid their State unemployment tax obligations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Landrieu- Snowe amendment because it corrects an injustice being visited upon the survivors of our servicemembers killed in action and military retirees under the current military Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP. As the program currently operates, the widows or widowers of those who have ``borne the battle'' receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the servicemember's retirement pay. That is, until they turn 62. At that time, under current law, a surviving spouse's SBP benefits must be reduced either by a Social Security offset, or a reduction in payments to 35 percent of retired pay--a drop of almost 40 percent--simply because they have reached the age of 62. For example, let's take the widow of a Navy chief petty officer or E- 7 who had served 20 years before retiring. Before she reaches 62, this widow will receive $786 per month, but on her 62nd birthday, that benefit drops to only $500 per month--a loss of $2,432 per year. For a retired O-5, say a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, the widow's benefit would drop by $6,960 a year as soon as she turns 62. That is quite a birthday gift. But the inequities don't stop there. For example, the military Survivor Benefit Plan does not measure up to the federal Survivor Benefit Plan in terms of benefits paid to survivors. Survivors of federal civilian retirees under the original Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent of their spouse's retired pay for life--with no drop in benefits at age 62. Under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System, survivors still receive 50 percent of retired pay for life, again with no drop at age 62. Mr. President, yet another reason that we should adopt this legislation is that members of the military pay more than their share of Survivor Benefit Plan program costs, as compared to their federal civilian counterparts. Originally, the Congress intended the government to subsidize 40 percent of the cost of military Survivor Benefit Plan premiums--similar to the government's contribution to the federal civilian plan. Over the last several decades, however, there has been a significant decline in the government's cost share, and Department of Defense actuaries advise that the government subsidy is now down to less than 20 percent. This means that military retirees are now paying more than 80 percent of program costs from their retired pay versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this to the federal civilian SBP, which has a 52 percent cost share for those under the Civil Service Retirement System and a 67 percent cost share for those employees, including many of our own staff, under the Federal Employees Retirement System. While it is true that there are differences between the civilian and military premium costs, with federal civilians paying more, it is also true that military retirees generally retire earlier than their federal civilian counterparts, and as a result, pay premiums for many more years. This amendment will raise, over a 3\1/2\-year period, the percentage of the retirement annuity received by the survivor from 35 percent to 55 percent after age 62. During the first year, fiscal year 2005, an open enrollment period will be held to allow new enrollees to sign up for the program in order to reduce retired pay outlays by increasing deductions of SBP premiums from retired pay, thus offsetting part of the cost of the survivor benefit increase. Beginning on Oct. 1, 2005, the age-62 SBP annuity would increase to 40 percent of retired pay, followed by additional increases to 45 percent on April 1, 2006, 50 percent on April 1, 2007 and 55 percent on April 1, 2008 after which all survivors would receive the 55 percent of the annuity. Once again, I ask my colleagues to support our Nation's military widows and widowers. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, we included a Sense of the Congress on increasing the military SBP annuity. This year, we have a chance to carry out this intent by enacting this important measure, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SNOWE

Mr. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004, a bill to strengthen our laws on protecting consumers and businesses from receiving unwanted commercial advertisements by facsimile, while at the same time preserving a key method of doing business for thousands of companies, large and small, across the United States. The sending of unsolicited commercial communications by facsimile--``junk faxes''--has been illegal since 1991, and the Federal Communications Commission is charged with enforcing that prohibition. Those who engage in ``blast faxes'' can and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as their behavior imposes unreasonable expenses upon residential and business facsimile subscribers. However, the FCC has long recognized an exception to this general ban on unsolicited faxes when the parties sending and receiving the fax have an established business relationship. Businesses of all shapes and sizes regularly conduct their transactions via facsimile, such as real estate agents, wholesalers and distributors, travel agents, and those in the convention industry. In our modern economy, companies that are often hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other do business together, often with the same or greater frequency as with those just up the street. And the reality of business is that sometimes you need to communicate in writing, and it needs to get there right away. The established business relationship exemption recognized this reality, and ensured that government was not placing an undue hardship on business owners. Yet inexplicably, on June 26, 2003 the FCC issued a new rule that eliminated the established business relationship. Under this new rule--which is set to take effect on January 1, 2005--the sender of a fax would have to acquire, in writing, the permission of the recipient to receive an unsolicited fax before the fax could be sent, even if the recipient made a verbal request that the information be faxed. As Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, I can state that the business community has in unison called upon Congress to take action to rectify this situation. Industry groups estimate that it will cost businesses an average of $5,000 in the first year alone to comply with the new law, and as much as $3,000 each year thereafter in record- keeping costs. These numbers do not take into account the potential lost business that could easily result if a primary method of business- to-business communication is cut off. Quite simply, small businesses in particular will suffer significantly if these rules are allowed to take effect. My bill will restore the established business relationship exemption, allowing standard business transactions to continue without inhibition. The term ``Established business relationship'' means the same thing in the Junk Fax Prevention Act as in the regulations governing the Federal Do-Not-Call Registry: it means that the fax subscriber either made an inquiry of the sender within the prior three months or a purchase from the sender within the prior 18 months. The Junk Fax Prevention Act also strengthens the protections available to fax recipients by adding an opt-out provision that the current law does not have. Even if an established business relationship exists, a fax subscriber can still request to not receive unsolicited faxes. The senders of these faxes must, by law, honor these requests, and they must include a notification of this right on every fax they send. As a strong supporter of consumer rights, I also want to assure my colleagues that this bill does not in any way place consumers at risk. Very few consumers own fax machines, and those who do are protected by the general ban on solicitation and the opt-out provision if they do have an existing business relationship. To ensure that the privacy of consumers and businesses is protected, my bill also provides for studies by both the General Accounting Office and the FCC to evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement. Small businesses have weathered the storm of the economic downturn over the past several years. As our economy now climbs out of recession and people return back to work, American businesses--our nation's employers do not need these unnecessary economic restraints to further hinder their recovery. I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in bringing relief to American businesses and pass the Junk Fax Prevention Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I mark the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the settlement of St. Croix Island, in Calais, ME, one of the earliest European settlements in North America. It is an extraordinary site with a remarkable story to tell--a narrative overflowing with adventure, courage, risk, and a very special friendship between the Native tribes who peopled this region long ago and the pioneers who crossed an ocean in pursuit of opportunity, prosperity, and freedom. There is an old Sioux proverb: ``A People without History is like Wind in the Buffalo Grass.'' When expedition leader Pierre Dugua and his company of 120 settlers arrived on the shores of what is now the great State of Maine, the First Peoples, the ``People of the Early Dawn,'' or Wabanaki, had already occupied these lands for thousands of years. Nevertheless, they came out of their villages with open hearts and open hands to welcome Dugua and the 120 noblemen, artisans, and soldiers who had sailed with Dugua across the Atlantic from their native France. At that moment, the European settlers began to craft a new history for this place they called ``Acadie.'' But it is important to remember that the Native Peoples, the Wabanaki, had already authored their own, proud history of North America, although it has taken us, in some cases, all too many years to understand that. That the Native tribes welcomed Dugua and his followers speaks to one of the noblest aspects of human nature--an instinct to reach out to men and women in need, to our human neighbors, whenever we can help, whether they live across the street, or across the world. Certainly, that generous impulse lives on today among the members of the Passamaquoddy Nation. The historical bond between the Native Peoples is also one to celebrate and remember. The lives and personalities of the people in this region continue to be shaped, generation after generation, by the history, legends, and purpose forever invested in this coastal stone and soil by Pierre Dugua and his companions, one of whom was the great Samuel Champlain, the ``Father of Canada.'' Let us not forget that 23 of the original French settlers remain interred on this island today, making this a sacred, as well as a historical, site. After four centuries, the settlement of St. Croix remains a powerful lesson, a parable that is not only about a journey of a thousand miles, beginning with a single step, but also about the extraordinary ability of diverse cultures to support and enrich one another, and, in the end, to create new cultures, new peoples who bring unique and singular strengths to the never-ending, universal campaign to build a peaceful and prosperous world.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I support the legislation introduced by my colleagues Senator Specter and Senator Schumer, the National Dairy Equity Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. This introduction is well timed as this month we are celebrating National Dairy Month and the positive aspects that eating dairy products have on our health. From calcium to potassium, dairy products contain essential nutrients that help to manage weight, reduce the risk for high blood pressure, osteoporosis and certain cancers, among other health benefits. In fact, each year 7 billion gallons of fluid milk are marketed in the United States, yielding about $22 billion in annual sales. However, the growing price spread between what the farmer receives and what the retail price is don't equal out. This is a concern to me. I applaud the sponsors of this legislation, Senators Specter and Schumer, for their hard work and commitment to the cause of bringing equity into the dairy industry. It should be noted that MILC replaced the very successful Northeast Dairy Compact during the reauthorization of the 2002 Farm bill. I fought very hard to reauthorize the Northeast Dairy Compact at that time because the Northeast Dairy Compact was not structured around payments from the government like the new MILC program. I ultimately voted for MILC because it was the best alternative to the Northeast Dairy Compact. I commend the resolve of Senators Specter and Schumer to craft a solution that is fair to farmers in all regions of the United States as their efforts have been nothing short of extraordinary. The National Dairy Equity Act is a win-win proposal that lends dairy farmers a hand, without tapping into the federal treasury. Price volatility in the milk market, coupled with growing production costs, has made it difficult for family dairy farmers to stay in business. The National Dairy Equity Act will work for both the people and the dairy farmers of New England as well as other parts of the United States by providing dairy farmers with a safety net and by helping to maintain a stable price for fluid milk. This legislation will also help to preserve a New England way of life. The legislation gives states the ability to work closely together to price milk in their own areas, giving states the power to determine fair prices. Of the milk sold in New England, a vast majority--more than 85 percent--is produced from herds in the New England area. The National Dairy Equity Act allows farmers in each of the five Regional Diary Marketing Areas, RDMAs, to establish minimum prices for Class I, fluid, milk based on the federal pricing structure. Under the bill, the Governor of each state, in consultation with producers and dairy industry representatives, nominates three members to the regional board. Participation by farmers and--importantly--participation by consumers is required. This regional approach effectively balances the needs of consumers and producers, while ensuring a healthier dairy industry in the future. The Regional Dairy Marketing Boards also have the authority to conduct effective supply management for their region, including the use of traditional and creative development and implementation of incentive-based supply management programs. To protect against overproduction, regions in which the growth in milk production is higher than the national average will be required to reimburse the Secretary of the Treasury for the cost of government dairy surplus purchases up to the amount that the region is receiving under the NDEA. This system of checks and balances protects against any overproduction. While the Northeast, Southern, and Upper Midwest regions are automatically considered as participating states, the National Dairy Equity Act has a mechanism for any State to opt into or out of the program. I consider this to be a strong provision in the bill precisely because it allows states to choose the option that is best for them. States that choose not to participate are eligible to participate in the current federal MILC program through September 2005. Individual farmers in states that opt for the MILC program can choose to continue receiving payments through the MILC contract until that legislation expires in September 2005. This legislation has been constructed to give flexibility and certainty to family dairy farmers. Further, the costs of operating the Regional Dairy Marketing Boards are borne entirely by those participating in the dairy industry in each of the respective regions, at no expense to the federal government. In addition, the Regional Dairy Marketing Boards provide environmental benefits through preservation of dwindling agricultural land and open spaces that help to combat the growing problem of urban sprawl, particularly near large cities, but which is starting to affect more rural areas as well. The National Dairy Equity Act provides farmers with the safety net they need to continue providing the resources for the myriad of dairy products we rely on to meet our health needs. I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity, during National Dairy Month to celebrate this creative policy solution presented by Senators Specter and Schumer that brings equity to dairy industry and could save the Federal treasury billions of dollars. This legislation is supported by the Maine Dairy Industry Association. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his question. Just like its previous version which I introduced on June 3, this amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests are represented in the Commission's composition and in the subjects of the Commission's activities. As I stated before, the Commission's activities will be incomplete without taking into account small business contributions to our Nation's defense. The most recent data from the Department of Defense suggests that more work needs to be done to secure small business access to national defense contracts. Representatives of small business contracting concerns would make important contributions to the work of the Commission. In addition, the Commission would benefit from participation by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration or his representative. Congress and President Bush endowed the Chief Counsel's Office of Advocacy with the unique mandate to represent America's small businesses before the agencies of our government. The Chief Counsel's trained staff of economists, analysts, and lawyers would provide much needed perspectives for the Commission deliberations. I thank Senator Byrd, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their work for America's small business. I also wish to thank the esteemed Senators Allen, Coleman, and Kerry for their support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address what I believe are fundamental deficiencies in the Intelligence Community's organization and methods of accountability. For some time, we have been engaged in an ongoing national debate about the scope, methods, organization and mission of our intelligence agencies. Since the creation of our modern Intelligence Community as part of the National Security Act of 1947 there have been numerous recommendations to strengthen the Intelligence Community leadership and mission to foster better communications and better serve the national security of the nation. Events over the last decade have highlighted some disturbing intelligence failures--we have all spoken sadly of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the Khobar Towers tragedy, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombs at our embassies in East Africa and of course, September 11. As a Congress we have an obligation to address these incidents and work to better our intelligence gathering and disseminating capabilities to ensure this list is not added to. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--and a former member of committees on international relations and armed services in both this body and the other--I have participated in this national debate on many fronts and for many years. Irrespective of the events surrounding Director Tenet's recent resignation, I have believed strongly in the need for reform of the Intelligence Community for some time. There is no question that the Intelligence Community requires systemic changes. Specifically, increases in human intelligence, better information sharing and greater accountability are all issues that desperately need to be addressed, and more importantly, acted on. It is my hope that the Intelligence Committee aggressively pursue specific recommendations based on a Committee-authored report to make substantive changes that will address the flaws that have been tragically revealed. Americans need 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. They operate in a dizzing world of ``what ifs'' where the rules change daily. 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, I charge this body to relay our eternal gratitude to those who serve America so well. But too often, breakdowns can occur that put Americans' lives at risk. There are many of us in Congress who believe that we have gone too long without making any real efforts to reform the Intelligence Community. 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. And 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. A major focus of mine for many years now has been accountability-- ensuring, for example, that government employees who issue travel visas to known terrorists are accountable to the American public for their actions. In this same vein, I'd like to see greater accountability brought to the Intelligence Community. The bill I am introducing today--the ``Intelligence Community Accountability Act of 2004''--creates an independent Inspector General for Intelligence. This IG is not housed within any one agency, rather, it is an Inspector General for the entire Intelligence Community--all fifteen agencies and department members. We must recognize that fifteen government agencies with fifteen different heads, fifteen different missions, fifteen chains of command and fifteen institutional paradigms are often handicapped in promulgating national intelligence. This in turn can lead to disconnects. And sadly in this business, such failures can lead to loss of life as we have been so graphically reminded over and over. Intelligence comes from a variety of sources and in a wide array of forms. The fifteen members of the Intelligence Community must adequately interpret what they see, hear and find and then communicate that to policy-makers who decide best how to use it in the defense of our homeland and interests abroad. The often used but highly appropriate cliche, ``connecting the dots'' requires extensive inter- agency cooperation for this to happen. And if that doesn't happen and failures occur as a result . . . who do we hold accountable? How do we ensure it doesn't happen again? Let me be clear, the Inspector General for Intelligence, or IGI, that this legislation creates will not diminish the power of the IG's that already exist within each of the Intelligence Community member agencies. Rather, it will enhance their powers, giving them an overarching body to turn to when their own institutional limits are reached--when their investigations or complaints involve other Intelligence Community members who may be unwilling to cooperate or unable to provide answers or where roadblocks caused by inter-agency ``turf wars'' are reached. It helps to fill a void in the accountability and oversight responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the entire Intelligence Community. In the recent committee report to accompany the FY 2005 Intelligence Authorization bill, the committee acknowledged the need for changes in the Intelligence Community and stated that it believes the process of reform ``must begin.'' Therefore, I submit that we begin as soon as possible--I know that the Chairman of our committee is committed to this effort and I hope that by bringing my legislation forward at this time, my colleagues can see that I too am eager for progress and momentum. Make no mistake--this effort is intended to be part of a larger push to overhaul the entire intelligence community's organizational structure. I welcome such a push and as we move forward in that endeavor, I will work to ensure my legislation is included in the deliberations. But until that happens, I implore my colleagues to study the issue, read my legislation and work with me to create this office. In looking at the Intelligence Community, we need to recognize that we are dealing with an amorphous entity made up of 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. By law, and specifically according to Executive Order 12333 issued by President Reagan in 1981, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency wears a ``double hat'' by serving as the Director of the entire Intelligence Community. Within the structure created, he often does the best he can. But as head of one of the agencies in the Community, his hands are often tied when it comes to exercising his authority over the other 14 members of a community over which he has jurisdiction. Currently the Director of Central Intelligence has limited budget authority over the Pentagon's intelligence budget--which represents approximately 85 percent of the total intelligence community budget. According to Executive Order 12333, which also defines the responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence, the DCI is charged with working with the Secretary of Defense to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between national foreign intelligence programs and Department of Defense intelligence programs. This provides him with limited authority over the DoD intelligence budget, although historically this authority has not been exercised. My legislation will essentially preserve the powers and role that the Director of Central Intelligence currently enjoys as adivsor to the President and head of the Intelligence Community, but it would make his office a separate entity and a member of the President's Cabinet. I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in coordination and communication during my twelve years as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was this lack of coordination 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 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. And after the attacks of 9-11, I worked hard to point out the importance of the ``Three C's'' that has been lacking among federal agencies that are integral to preventing terrorism: coordination, communication, and cooperation. This legislation that I am introducing today, is an extension of my efforts then. The bottom line is, if knowledge is power, we are only as strong as the weakest link in our information network--therefore, we must ensure that the only ``turf war'' will be the one to protect American turf. In our fight against terrorism, we can do no less. We must move heaven and earth to remove the impediments that keep us from maximizing our defense against terrorism, and that means changing the prevailing system and culture by re-focusing on the ``Three C's'': coordination, communication and cooperation. Many of our greatest victories--those won by the men and women in our intelligence services--will be measured by the attacks that never happen . . . in battles we win before they ever have a name . . . in conflicts we prevent before they ever claim one American life. I hope we will pass and enact legislation that will help make that possible.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address what I believe are fundamental deficiencies in the Intelligence Community's organization and methods of accountability. For some time, we have been engaged in an ongoing national debate about the scope, methods, organization and mission of our intelligence agencies. Since the creation of our modern Intelligence Community as part of the National Security Act of 1947 there have been numerous recommendations to strengthen the Intelligence Community leadership and mission to foster better communications and better serve the national security of the nation. Events over the last decade have highlighted some disturbing intelligence failures--we have all spoken sadly of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the Khobar Towers tragedy, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombs at our embassies in East Africa and of course, September 11. As a Congress we have an obligation to address these incidents and work to better our intelligence gathering and disseminating capabilities to ensure this list is not added to. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence--and a former member of committees on international relations and armed services in both this body and the other--I have participated in this national debate on many fronts and for many years. Irrespective of the events surrounding Director Tenet's recent resignation, I have believed strongly in the need for reform of the Intelligence Community for some time. There is no question that the Intelligence Community requires systemic changes. Specifically, increases in human intelligence, better information sharing and greater accountability are all issues that desperately need to be addressed, and more importantly, acted on. It is my hope that the Intelligence Committee aggressively pursue specific recommendations based on a Committee-authored report to make substantive changes that will address the flaws that have been tragically revealed. Americans need 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. They operate in a dizzing world of ``what ifs'' where the rules change daily. 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, I charge this body to relay our eternal gratitude to those who serve America so well. But too often, breakdowns can occur that put Americans' lives at risk. There are many of us in Congress who believe that we have gone too long without making any real efforts to reform the Intelligence Community. 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. And 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. A major focus of mine for many years now has been accountability-- ensuring, for example, that government employees who issue travel visas to known terrorists are accountable to the American public for their actions. In this same vein, I'd like to see greater accountability brought to the Intelligence Community. The bill I am introducing today--the ``Intelligence Community Accountability Act of 2004''--creates an independent Inspector General for Intelligence. This IG is not housed within any one agency, rather, it is an Inspector General for the entire Intelligence Community--all fifteen agencies and department members. We must recognize that fifteen government agencies with fifteen different heads, fifteen different missions, fifteen chains of command and fifteen institutional paradigms are often handicapped in promulgating national intelligence. This in turn can lead to disconnects. And sadly in this business, such failures can lead to loss of life as we have been so graphically reminded over and over. Intelligence comes from a variety of sources and in a wide array of forms. The fifteen members of the Intelligence Community must adequately interpret what they see, hear and find and then communicate that to policy-makers who decide best how to use it in the defense of our homeland and interests abroad. The often used but highly appropriate cliche, ``connecting the dots'' requires extensive inter- agency cooperation for this to happen. And if that doesn't happen and failures occur as a result . . . who do we hold accountable? How do we ensure it doesn't happen again? Let me be clear, the Inspector General for Intelligence, or IGI, that this legislation creates will not diminish the power of the IG's that already exist within each of the Intelligence Community member agencies. Rather, it will enhance their powers, giving them an overarching body to turn to when their own institutional limits are reached--when their investigations or complaints involve other Intelligence Community members who may be unwilling to cooperate or unable to provide answers or where roadblocks caused by inter-agency ``turf wars'' are reached. It helps to fill a void in the accountability and oversight responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence in his role as head of the entire Intelligence Community. In the recent committee report to accompany the FY 2005 Intelligence Authorization bill, the committee acknowledged the need for changes in the Intelligence Community and stated that it believes the process of reform ``must begin.'' Therefore, I submit that we begin as soon as possible--I know that the Chairman of our committee is committed to this effort and I hope that by bringing my legislation forward at this time, my colleagues can see that I too am eager for progress and momentum. Make no mistake--this effort is intended to be part of a larger push to overhaul the entire intelligence community's organizational structure. I welcome such a push and as we move forward in that endeavor, I will work to ensure my legislation is included in the deliberations. But until that happens, I implore my colleagues to study the issue, read my legislation and work with me to create this office. In looking at the Intelligence Community, we need to recognize that we are dealing with an amorphous entity made up of 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. By law, and specifically according to Executive Order 12333 issued by President Reagan in 1981, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency wears a ``double hat'' by serving as the Director of the entire Intelligence Community. Within the structure created, he often does the best he can. But as head of one of the agencies in the Community, his hands are often tied when it comes to exercising his authority over the other 14 members of a community over which he has jurisdiction. Currently the Director of Central Intelligence has limited budget authority over the Pentagon's intelligence budget--which represents approximately 85 percent of the total intelligence community budget. According to Executive Order 12333, which also defines the responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence, the DCI is charged with working with the Secretary of Defense to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between national foreign intelligence programs and Department of Defense intelligence programs. This provides him with limited authority over the DoD intelligence budget, although historically this authority has not been exercised. My legislation will essentially preserve the powers and role that the Director of Central Intelligence currently enjoys as adivsor to the President and head of the Intelligence Community, but it would make his office a separate entity and a member of the President's Cabinet. I saw firsthand the consequences of serious inadequacies in coordination and communication during my twelve years as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee and chair of the International Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was this lack of coordination 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 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. And after the attacks of 9-11, I worked hard to point out the importance of the ``Three C's'' that has been lacking among federal agencies that are integral to preventing terrorism: coordination, communication, and cooperation. This legislation that I am introducing today, is an extension of my efforts then. The bottom line is, if knowledge is power, we are only as strong as the weakest link in our information network--therefore, we must ensure that the only ``turf war'' will be the one to protect American turf. In our fight against terrorism, we can do no less. We must move heaven and earth to remove the impediments that keep us from maximizing our defense against terrorism, and that means changing the prevailing system and culture by re-focusing on the ``Three C's'': coordination, communication and cooperation. Many of our greatest victories--those won by the men and women in our intelligence services--will be measured by the attacks that never happen . . . in battles we win before they ever have a name . . . in conflicts we prevent before they ever claim one American life. I hope we will pass and enact legislation that will help make that possible.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Our Nation mourns the passage of a man who called Americans to their economic purpose and renewed our age-old faith in the limitless possibilities of freedom. With heavy but immensely grateful hearts, our country grieves the passing of President Ronald Reagan and extends our collective thoughts and prayers to his extraordinary wife Nancy and the entire Reagan family. Reflecting today on the hope that President Reagan inspired in America, I am reminded of the story of Benjamin Franklin near the close of the Constitutional Convention. Franklin pointed to the painting behind Washington's chair, a landscape of the Sun just on the horizon and remarked: I have often . . . looked at that sun behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now . . . I have the happiness to know it is a rising and not a setting sun. Let the record forever show that in a time of great consequence, President Reagan assured an uncertain nation that ours remains always a rising Sun. He brought a passionate belief in American ideas to bear in advancing freedom as a force for good in the world and heralded a new dawn of confidence at home. Like so many Americans, I remember well the steep challenges facing the Nation in 1980. At that time, having already served 2 years in the House of Representatives, we could look back to the late 1970s as an incubator of change. Before President Reagan, we had become conditioned to accept limitations on what we might aspire to as individuals and as a nation. But out of those days of national disillusionment and political drift came a bold leader to inspire confidence. As I said, I had just completed my freshman term as a Member of Congress, and this was a period of self-doubt for America. Internationally, our country was mired in the cold war and reeling from the Iranian hostage crisis. On the domestic front, our economy had been sapped by double-digit inflation, double-digit prime interest rates, and stifled by massive tax burdens, including a top tax rate of 70 percent. We also had been undercut by a serious energy crisis at that point in time. In fact, we had gasoline lines here in Washington and all through the country at that point. So suffice it to say, these were not bright days in Washington or America. As I said at the time, whoever won the White House would bear the responsibility for making America productive once again, and President Reagan did. With his conviction that the greatest untapped potential lie in the American people themselves--by embracing hope, not resignation, and by projecting an optimism in our Nation and her people that was as genuine as the man himself--he charted a course for America for greater prosperity and security. As President, as we know, he confronted the world's only other superpower, laying the foundation for victory in the cold war. He campaigned to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy, to return tax dollars to the families that had earned them, and to devolve out of Washington and back to local governments--all ideas whose time had come, just as President Reagan's had. Not only that, but he reinvigorated America with his unabashed faith in her essential goodness. The other night, I had the opportunity to recount the Reagan era with my husband, Jock McKernan, who also served 4 years in Congress. He served the other congressional district in the State of Maine. He was there for 4 years as well under the Reagan Presidency. We were recalling a time in which we visited the White House, regarding the shaping of defense policy. As Senator Gregg was recounting, we were building up our national defense. We recalled the statement the President made at the time, which I think summed up his belief in trying to make a distinction between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. He said: You know, it tells something about a country when more people want to leave the country than want to come in. His simple logic was indeed compelling. President Reagan was a conservative Republican from California, and I, of course, was a moderate Republican from New England. Obviously, there were times--and many times, in fact--when we might differ on policy. Yet I can also recall meeting with him and other members of the Republican caucus, as well as Democrats. We had numerous meetings at the White House either in the Cabinet room or within the Oval Office itself. We were able to negotiate our differences, whether it was within our party or across party lines. The issues ranged from defense policy, to the MX missile, to Central America, to the budget. We had numerous budget discussions where we negotiated the actual budget resolutions and the budget numbers themselves. And I spearheaded an effort to meet with the President to talk about women's issues, to close the gender gap which at that time was affecting the Republican party. In fact, it led to ultimately passing the landmark child support enforcement legislation, that heretofore had not been part of the Federal lexicon, much less part of Federal policy. And to this day I have on my wall a letter of appreciation from President Reagan for my efforts to help develop and pass the 1986 Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act, which he signed and which contained a provision I authored to create an accountability review board within the State Department to investigate all incidents involving serious security failures. With regard to trade policies, we had a number of meetings. In fact, my husband and I met in the Oval Office with the President to discuss the impact of international trade policies, particularly as they affected Maine's industries, whether it was the potato industry, shoe industry, or the lumber industry. He was always respectful of divergent views and willing to keep his Oval Office door open, even as he always knew what he believed. In terms of his principles, his compass was steady. At the same time, he was certainly committed to the fine and, in Washington, rare art of listening. He was also willing to seek consensus, even though we surely had a partisan environment at that time. We had a divided Government, with the Democrats controlling the House and the Republicans controlling the Senate, and obviously a Republican Presidency. But again, he was willing to forge consensus because he believed that was the only way you could get things done. Rather than by controversy and division, in the final analysis you had to do it by persuasion and openness. So he was willing to develop pragmatic approaches in the final analysis because he was a problem solver. Actually, he gave life to what he once said: ``If I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get . . . I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future.'' He certainly did live by that axiom throughout his tenure of 8 years, irrespective of the differences. Ultimately, he wanted to achieve the great things he set out to do when he became President and also to make sure he could be resolute in implementing his vision for this country. He was entirely comfortable with stepping outside of others' conventional perception of himself and his politics. He was also extremely credible as Commander in Chief, as leader of this country when he set about to build up our military and to defy the Soviet Union and to ultimately bring down the Wall. The fact is, he also, on the other side of the coin, ultimately negotiated the first pact to reduce the United States and Soviet nuclear arsenals--he negotiated that with Mikhail Gorbachev--because, again, he understood what needed to be accomplished in the end. His legacy will forever be his vision that brought about the end of the cold war because, again, he saw the difference between dictatorships and democracy and our ability to foster liberty in the dark corners of the world. Some thought his bold descriptions and his plans to bridge the wide chasms that separated democracy from despotism were ill-considered. Yet he viewed the world through that crystal clear prism of, in the words of Shakespeare, ``simple truth miscalled simplicity.'' I believe that says it all because I think President Reagan understood that in order to be an effective leader, to be a strong President, to be the leader of this country who was a force for good and to project that force for good, you ultimately had to move the process, and you had to work within the system and with the other branch of Government to make that happen. Another great of the 20th century refused praise for having lent his lion-hearted strength to an entire nation. Instead, Winston Churchill remarked, it was his nation that had the ``lion's heart'' all along, and it fell to him only to ``give the roar.'' So it was with President Ronald Reagan. His words summoned our resolve and our goodness, and his steady hand guided America to a triumph for all free people. As providence would have it, President Reagan gave America's roar during what would become--in no small part, thanks to him--the last decade of the cold war. With peace through strength, Ronald Reagan called America to a purpose he described in his own hand in 1980 when he wrote: I believe it is our pre-ordained destiny to show all mankind that they too can be free without having to leave their native shore. For this legacy, the American people and free people everywhere are in his debt, just as he is in our hearts and his family, as well, in our prayers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last Thursday, I submitted amendment No. 3273 to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 revising and extending the authority for the advisory panel to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy on review of government procurement laws and regulations This amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests are represented both in the membership of the panel and in its activities. The advisory panel was created in Section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, and was mandated to focus on laws and regulations concerning the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and the use of government-wide contracts. The panel was required to issue a report a year after appointment, but, otherwise, the panel has no subset date. While the panel was to study contracting laws in different contexts, small business was not one of them. Further, Section 1423 provided that appointments were to be made in consultation with several government agencies and Congressional committees involved in procurement policy. Again, neither the Small Business Administration nor the Congressional Small Business Committees were mentioned. Finally, there as no mention of small business with regard to the panel's report. As Chair of the Small Business Committee, I am profoundly troubled by the omission of small business interests from the work of this panel. The contracting practices to be studied by the panel have an enormous impact on the ability of small business to participate in the Federal procurement marketplace. The Senate must assure small businesses that their opinions about acquisition reforms will be heard. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It would require participation on the panel by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration or his designee. The Chief Counsel's Office of Advocacy, created by Public Law 94-305, has a unique mandate to be an independent voice of small business before Congress and Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 13272 signed by President George W. Bush, Federal agencies must consider the chief counsel's comments on any proposed rules in order to ensure that our government's policies will not cause harm to America's small business. As we know, small businesses have been struggling to gain and retain access to Federal contracts. Problems like contract bundling continue to persist, and many agencies still fail to meet their statutory small business contracting goals. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy and his capable staff have worked hard to tackle challenges faced by small companies in doing business with the Federal Government. Naming the chief counsel or his designee to this panel will enable the Office of Advocacy to better carry out its statutory mandate, and it will facilitate the implementation of President Bush's Executive order on consideration of small business interests. The chief counsel, Mr. Thomas M. Sullivan, advised my committee that such an appointment will be in the interest of small business. This amendment also requires the panel to consider small business issues in its studies and in its report, provides for an extension in the deadline for completing or supplementing its report to reflect the small business perspective, and mandates accountability to the small business committees of the House and the Senate. This amendment gives small businesses a seat at the table to have their views heard as recommendations are made that could significantly impact their future viability as government contractors. Senators Coleman and Kerry have already expressed their support for this amendment by becoming cosponsors. I urge the rest of my esteemed colleagues to support America's small business and this amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, I rise to speak to an amendment to Section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 revising the authority for the Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base. This amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests are represented in the membership of the commission and are considered in its studies. I applaud Chairman Warner and the Armed Services Committee for creating this Commission in Section 841 of this Act. This esteemed commission will be composed from persons with backgrounds in defense industry, foreign policy, trade, labor, economics, and other relevant fields. Further, this commission is charged with studying and reporting on various important issues affecting the future of the national technology and industrial base. However, as chair of the Small Business Committee, I was surprised to find that Section 841 contains no requirement to appoint small business persons to the commission. I was also disappointed to see that the commission is not currently required to study small business issues. There is no reasonable basis for retaining these omissions in the act. Persuasive studies from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration have shown that small businesses are crucial to job creation, economic development, and technological innovation. Further, the Small Business Act sets forth the goal of directing 23 percent of defense procurement dollars to small business prime contracts. Clearly, the commission's studies will be incomplete without taking into account small business contributions to our Nation's defense. My amendment provides for appointment to the commission of persons with background in small business contracting. It also gives this commission the mandate to study the ways to strengthen the role of the small business sector as a vital component of our national technology and industrial base. National Hunger Awareness Day

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the United States Senate's World War II veterans--soldiers then, statesmen now. They each have unique personal histories and paths from wearing the uniform to serving in this body, yet they share that common badge of honor. They took up arms in a war for the life of all free nations, and for the survival of deliberative democracy embodied by the Chamber in which they serve today. The dedication of the World War II Memorial this past weekend freshly reminded all of us that individuals like Senators Warner, Stevens, Akaka, Hollings and Inouye devoted their youth to the greatest cause our Nation has ever undertaken. During that ceremony on Sunday, the sea of former soldiers, and sailors and airmen on the National Mall was a moving testament to the unique, lasting place all veterans have in their hearts for fallen comrades. Years have not diminished the meaning of sacrifice that they know best. Where often our prayers and thoughts focus on the blessings of liberty, we were also recently reminded by Memorial Day of the costs of the liberty--the loss of those who in Lincoln's words gave the ``last, full measure of devotion.'' It is only fitting that, on the heels of Memorial Day and the dedication of the World War II Memorial, we take a moment to recognize our friends and colleagues who served in the Armed Forces during the Second World War. In the Senate, we are all privileged to serve with five colleagues who wore the uniform during a time freedom and civilization itself depend upon young soldiers like them. Senator John Warner, now at the helm of the Armed Services Committee, volunteered for the U.S. Navy at the young age of 17, and later would enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps in Korea. Senator Ted Stevens carved out a decorated war record as a pilot in the China-Burma-India theater, supporting the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force. His bravery earned him two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Air Medals, and the Yuan Hai medal award by the Republic of China. Senator Daniel Akaka, now a leader on the Armed Services Committee, was once a young Hawaii welder and mechanic serving with the Army Corps of Engineers in the Marianas, from 1945 to 1947. Senator Fritz Hollings, schooled at the Citadel, began his service in 1942 as a commissioned officer in the North African and European fronts, where he would receive the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. Senator Daniel Inouye had known the horror of Pearl Harbor, where he volunteered as head of a first-aid team, and in 1943, he enlisted in the U.S. Army's 442nd Regimental combat Team. Senator Inouye has chronicled his World War II experiences in ``Go for Broke,'' the story of his famed group of Japanese-American soldiers. Senator Frank Lautenberg joined the U.S. Army Signal Corps fresh from high school. He served until 1946 in Signal Corps Battalion 3185 and as a communications specialist attached to British 21st Army Group. These five colleagues remind us of the high calling to which the Greatest Generation responded--prepared to give all, to protect all. They served beside 400,000 American comrades who would never leave the shores and soil of Europe, the islands of the Pacific and the desert of North Africa. On the ``Freedom Wall'' of the new World War II Memorial shine 4,000 gold stars--with each star representing 100 lives lost. Just as that human toll approaches the unfathomable, so too do we struggle to truly comprehend the extent to which the heroes of World War II--all with their own unique lives and stories and dreams that would never be fulfilled--collectively turned the course of history away from darkness and toward liberty and light. As their loss to their family and country was permanent, let us also never forget that what they achieved for humankind will stand for all nations, for all time.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to expand the Mentor-Protege program to include service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and qualified HUBZone small business concerns as eligible participants. Four years ago I worked closely with Chairman Warner to extend the benefits of this successful program to women-owned small businesses. As chair of the Small Business Committee, it is my responsibility to create an environment where small businesses can flourish and apply their talents to the many pressing needs facing our government. The primary issue for small business is access to the Federal marketplace and the opportunity to compete. When small businesses are denied the opportunity to participate in the Federal procurement process, the result for our government is a dramatically reduced contractor base, and the mounting lost opportunity cost of choosing among fewer innovative firms to deliver products and services at lower prices. For the past several years, the Department of Defense has had a program in place to try to develop and maintain small disadvantaged- and women-owned vendors as a vital part of our Nation's defense industrial base. This program has also been a principal source of opportunity for these firms by offsetting some of the other Federal procurement practices, specifically contract bundling, that have squeezed small business out of contracting. Small businesses play a critical role in our Nation's economic and homeland security. Small businesses are currently the leading job creators in our Nation's economy and are responsible for more than 75 percent of net new jobs in America. However, millions of Americans today continue to struggle to find jobs. Hardest hit are the Nation's inner cities and depressed rural areas that face poverty year after year. By locating in a historically underutilized business zone--HUBZone, more than 10,000 small businesses have responded to the call to make a difference in these underserved communities and to strengthen our economic security. Congress needs to do its part by making the DoD a frequent customer of these small businesses, so we can help them compete effectively in the marketplace and create more jobs. The Federal government, including the DoD, can and should also do more to meet its commitment to small businesses owned by veterans, including service-disabled veterans. As committee chair, I am dedicated to ensuring that these individuals who have sacrificed so much to defend free competitive enterprise are provided with increased opportunities to perform Federal contracts, especially contracts for weapons, equipment, and services for our warfighters. In the fiscal year 1991 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress adopted a provision to help small disadvantaged firms develop the technical infrastructure necessary to perform Federal contracts effectively. This pilot program, the Mentor-Protege program, provided for prime contractors to either be reimbursed for their added costs in providing technical assistance to certain small firms, or to receive credit for accomplishing their subcontracting plans in lieu of reimbursement. Four years ago, I sponsored legislation that now enables women-owned firms to participate in the program. Experience under the Mentor-Protege pilot program has been positive. Mentor firms have demonstrated that they can help train small disadvantaged- and women-owned protege firms to develop the infrastructure, necessary to be successful in large Federal contracts. As these successful proteges graduate, mentors can open their doors to the next generation of firms eager to contract with DoD as suppliers and subcontractors. The program clearly has contributed to the success of bringing small disadvantaged- and women-owned businesses into DoD contract work. Over the last four years the DoD has increased the volume of dollars awarded to small disadvantaged businesses by more than 180 percent and the dollars awarded to women-owned firms by nearly 100 percent. I ask that we expand participation to businesses owned by service- disabled veterans and businesses that locate in severely economically distressed areas. In so doing, we enhance the business competitiveness of these classes of firms and strengthen our defense industrial base by generating waves of small businesses prepared to supply goods and services in defense of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I also have an amendment to Section 833 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 providing for improvements and accountability measures in the test program which permits large prime contractors to develop company- or unit-wide subcontracting plans. This amendment is designed to ensure that the test program undergoes appropriate evaluation and monitoring in order to enable accurate assessment of the effects of the test approach on subcontracting opportunities for small business. Currently, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and customary procurement practices require prime contractors to prepare subcontracting plans with a particular contract or potential contract in mind. The test program, which operates as an exception to this rule, was authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for FYs 1990 and 1991. The purpose of the test program was to explore whether comprehensive subcontract planning could prove to be an adequate alternative for achieving meaningful small business subcontracting at lesser cost. In April 2004, the General Accounting Office issued a report entitled ``Contract Management: DoD Needs Measures for Small Business Contracting and Better Data on Foreign Subcontracts,'' GAO-04-381, where it found the test program's results inconclusive and criticized the Defense Department for failing to adopt measurement metrics to meaningfully evaluate the test program. Despite this report, the Armed Services Committee approved a five-year extension of the test program in Section 833 of the Act. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I am deeply concerned that the program fails to live up to its purpose as a test, and I question the prudence of extending this test program without proper standards and procedures to measure its success. My amendment provides a certain deadline for the DoD to institute the needed measurement metrics and freezes the expansion of the program until these metrics are in place. The amendment also provides for oversight by the GAO.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Lastly, Mr. President, I have an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 to strike Section 811(b) of the act, which alters disclosure requirements for subcontracting information provided to small businesses through the Procurement Technical Assistance Program of the Defense Logistics Agency. This amendment will ensure that small businesses seeking federal subcontracting opportunities through PTAP would continue to have adequate point-of-contact information for procurements up to $1 million. The Procurement Technical Assistance Program assists small businesses by providing training and information about federal business opportunities, both prime and subcontracts. Under the terms of this program, the DLA joins forces with State, local, and tribal governments for the purpose of delivering technical assistance services to businesses that are new to federal procurement. Current law requires that experienced defense contractors with over $500,000 in contract awards disclose to assistance providers the contact information for their executives with authority to enter into subcontracts. These disclosures must be made only once a year. The cost of disclosures is practically non-existent. However, the disclosure requirement materially advances the purpose of the program by allowing small businesses easy access to potential subcontracts. Nevertheless, Section 811(b) of the act seeks to exempt experienced defense contractors from these annual disclosures unless they receive over $1 million in government contracts. The need for this change is, at best, questionable. Providing a few names and phone numbers once a year is hardly a significant burden. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I am concerned that this change would needlessly obscure the procurement process for small business. I urge the Senate to retain the current PTAP disclosure requirements.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan, Lott, Feinstein and myself to refocus the provisions in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Bill that authorizes a base closure round in 2005 from our domestic installations to our overseas military infrastructure. I do so because I am firmly convinced that today, in this unprecedented era of our global war on terrorism, as we continue operations in Afghanistan to root out the seeds of terror, as we are engaged in ensuring a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, it makes no sense to consider closing nearly a quarter of our domestic military infrastructure in addition to the 21 percent already lost over the past 15 years here in America. I arrive at this debate as a veteran of a number of issues key to our deliberations. First, I have been all too intimately acquainted with every base closure round since the first in 1988 as well as the accompanying pitfalls, failures and foibles of each--and believe me, there were many. Second, with 12 years as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee, as chair of the subcommittee's Senate counterpart, as a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I cannot and will not ignore the pattern I have discerned of a failure to ``connect'' critical ``dots'' in the past--and the implications of these shortfalls for our ability to project into the future. For starters, having fought battle after battle after battle to preserve the former Loring Air Force Base in Maine, only to have criteria changed and added literally at the 11th hour, you can feel free to label me a ``skeptic'' when it comes to the integrity of the process. In fact, we had not one but two Air Force generals defending Loring before the BRAC Commission but in a fundamental breach of confidence in the process, when they could not counter our strategic arguments for Loring, it was a brand new factor--so-called ``quality of life''--that tipped the scales against strategic location and military value at the very last moment when the Air Force claimed its facilities were ``well below average'' despite the fact that $300 million had been spent there over a 10 year period to replace or upgrade nearly everything on the base. To date, 49 bases in the Northeast alone have been lost to BRAC while the region--closest to Europe of anywhere in the United States I might add--has already suffered about a 50 percent reduction in infrastructure under BRAC. And now further cuts are being discussed, when it was the northeast that suffered the worst attack ever on American soil? When 18 percent of America's population lives in that region? And when we know the Department of Homeland Security is not going to be building any bases--should we be considering closing the very military facilities that are required to protect the Nation? The fact is, once our critical bases are lost, they are lost forever. In that light, given the transformational times in which we live, given the requirement to make fiscal year 2005 BRAC projections 20 years into the future, while the track record of 6 year projections in the past has been so poor, as I will illustrate, given these projections will be the foundation upon which all infrastructure assessments will be built, and given that I have never been convinced of the alleged cost savings resulting from BRAC--an underpinning of the effort to even have a BRAC process in the first place--I do not believe this BRAC round should proceed at this time. Advocates of BRAC allege that billions of dollars will be saved, despite the fact that there is no consensus on the numbers among different sources. These estimates vary because, as the Congressional Budget Office explained in 1998, BRAC savings are really ``avoided costs.'' Because these avoided costs are not actual expenditures and cannot be recorded and tracked by the Department of Defense accounting systems, they cannot be validated, which has led to inaccurate and overinflated estimates of savings. These estimated savings also do not include the very real costs of economic cleanup and financial assistance provided by Federal agencies to BRAC-affected communities and individuals. According to a 1998 report by the General Accounting Office, the unaccounted costs for environmental cleanup beyond the 6-year BRAC implementation period can exceed $2.4 billion and an additional $1.1 billion was in community assistance--and also not accounted for in the Department's estimated savings that result from BRAC. That same General Accounting Office report also found that land sales from the first base closure round in 1988 were estimated by Pentagon officials to produce $2.4 billion in revenue; however, as of 1995, the actual revenue generated was only $65.7 million. That's about 25 percent of the expected value. This type of overly optimistic accounting establishes a very poor foundation for initiating a policy that will have a permanent impact on our national defenses, the military and the civilian communities surrounding these bases. So the bottom line is, no one really knows what the bottom line is. But what most concerns me is the inadequacy of the military's threat assessment projections time after time accompanying the requirement included in the enacting BRAC legislation in 1991, that stipulates that the Secretary: shall include a force structure plan for the Armed Forces based on an assessment by the Secretary of the probable threats to the national security during the six-year period beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget request is made. I can say this because I have reviewed the military threat assessments contained in the force structure plans that the Department provided along with the justifications for the 1991, 1993 and 1995 BRAC rounds as well as other key assessments made by the Department during that time such as the 1993 Bottom Up Review, the 1997 Quadrennial Review and the 2001 Quadrennial Review. Specifically, I wondered, how did actual events and results match with their expectations? How did their threat assessments dovetail with new realities like ``terrorism,'' ``asymmetric threat,'' ``homeland security'' or ``homeland defense.'' I then went back a little more than 21 years ago to the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut and looked at significant terrorist events directed against Americans throughout the world as chronicled by the State Department. In the 1980's, American interests were clearly and constantly under attack--6 months after the embassy bombing in Beirut, we lost 242 brave Marines there to a suicide bomber. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked and a U.S. Navy diver, Robert Stethem was killed, and that October, four terrorists seized the Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghofer. In 1986, another two servicemen were killed and 79 American servicemen injured when a Berlin disco was bombed--my colleagues will recall this action resulted in President Reagan's launching of Operation El Dorado Canyon against Libya--and, tragically, in December of 1988, Pan Am 103 was destroyed over Lockerbie. Those are just a few of the significant incidents out of the 17 listed by the State Department in the 1980's in which Americans were the targets of terror. Yet after all these events, let's look at what the four page 1991 BRAC military threat assessment submitted for the years 1992-1997 had to say: Threats to US interests range from the enmity of nations like North Korea and Cuba, to pressures from friend and foe alike to reduce US presence around the world. The most enduring concern for US leadership is that the Soviet Union remains the one country in the world capable of destroying the US with a single devastating attack. The Soviet state still will have millions of well armed men in uniform and will remain the strongest military force on the Eurasian landmass. While Iraq will require perhaps a decade to rebuild its military capabilities to pre-hostilities levels, Baghdad will likely remain a disruptive political force in the region. As for terrorism, there was just a passing mention of the issue as an impediment to regional stability and the enhancement of democracy worldwide but no discussion of it in the context as a threat to the United States. No mention of ``asymmetric threats,'' and no ``homeland security.'' Then, on February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage, leaving 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. Yet the military threat assessment contained in the 1993 BRAC report told us: The vital interests of the United States will be threatened by regional crises between historical antagonists such as North and South Korea, India and Pakistan and Middle East/ Persian Gulf states. The future world military situation will be characterized by regional actors with modern destructive weaponry, including chemical and biological weapons, modern ballistic missiles and, in some cases, nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, competition for political influence and natural resources along with weak economies, Islamic fundamentalism and demographic pressures will contribute to deteriorating living standards and encourage social unrest. Please note, now, in this report, oddly there is suddenly once again no mention of ``terrorism'' at all, and no ``asymmetric threat,'' no ``homeland security.'' Furthermore, the Bottom Up Review, a wide ranging review of strategy, programs and resources to delineate a national defense strategy, signed out in October 1993 described four new dangers to U.S. interests after the end of the Cold War: No. 1, The proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, No. 2, Aggression by major regional powers or ethnic and religious conflict, No. 3, Potential failure of democratic reform in the former Soviet Union, and No. 4, The potential failure to build a strong and growing US economy. This report was issued just 8 months after that 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, yet there was still no mention of ``asymmetric threat,'' no ``homeland security'' and just a passing reference to ``state-sponsored'' terrorism. And even at that, the World Trade Center bombing was not conducted by ``state-sponsored'' terrorists but rather the Sheikh Omar Rahman, a non-state-sponsored terrorist. Back to the timeline, in March 1995 we see the Tokyo subway attack by the Aum-Shinrikyo cult using sarin gas, the same gas discovered in Iraq this week, killed 12 and injured 5700 and, a month later, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb, killing 166 of our fellow citizens. By contrast, I was astounded that the 1995 Force Structure Plan addressing threats from 1995 through 2001 was--other than the removal of a few sentences--the same as the 1993 BRAC threat assessment--so much for rigorous analysis. Still no ``terrorism,'' no ``asymmetric threat,'' and no ``homeland security''--and this less than 6 years before September 11th! Remember this BRAC round requires DoD to look outward 20 years! In 1996, a fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran. The Global Security Environment piece of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review described the world as a highly dangerous place with a number of ``significant'' challenges facing the U.S. including: Foremost among these is the threat of coercion and large- scale, cross-border aggression against U.S. allies and friends in key regions by hostile states with significant military power. Second, despite the best efforts of the international community, states find it increasingly difficult to control the flow of sensitive information and regulate the technologies that can have military or terrorist uses. Third, as the early years of the post-Cold War period portended, U.S. interests will continue to be challenged by a variety of transnational dangers. . . . The illegal drug trade and international organized crime will continue to ignore our borders, attack our society, and threaten our personal liberty and well-being. Fourth, while we are dramatically safer than during the Cold War, the US homeland is not free from external threats. . . . In addition, other unconventional means of attack, such as terrorism, are no longer just threats to our diplomats, military forces, and private Americans overseas, but will threaten Americans at home in the years to come. So by 1997, the Department was acknowledging the fact that terrorists using asymmetric means might attack the homeland--again, I might add yet it still remained a fourth tier concern for the Pentagon in spite of the continuing onslaught of terrorism around the world--and the 1993 bombing here at home. Then, in 1998, two bombs exploded almost simultaneously outside US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In Aden, Yemen 2 years later, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the USS Cole. And then, September 11th, 2001 changed our lives forever. What did the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review--issued, I might add, 19 days after the attack--find? They found that ``as the September 2001 events have horrifically demonstrated, the geographic position of the United States no longer guarantees immunity from direct attack on its population, territory or infrastructure,'' and that ``the United States is likely to be challenged by adversaries who possess a wide range of capabilities, including asymmetric approaches to warfare, particularly weapons of mass destruction.'' That was an astute observation considering what happened 19 days before. And by the way, I also noted in examining the 80 page 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review the lack of any mention of al Qaeda by name--not once. All this illustrates the significant dose of skepticism with which we should examine the current force structure plan and accompanying threat assessment submitted by the Department to justify the BRAC 2005 round-- again, considering that we would now base decisions on a 20 year assessment, never mind just 6--and even the 6 year projections proved spotty at best--and considering the volatile times in which we live. And I have to say that what we received--over a month later than required by the BRAC legislation, I might add--is about what I expected--not much. Indeed, my sense is they took the assumptions made for the Future Year Defense Plan and simply extended them out to 2009. Even after 20 years of constant terrorist attacks, the Defense Department still hasn't matched its force structures with the threats to our Nation. In fact, they avoided the entire issue of the threats this Nation will face over the next twenty years by claiming that today's security environment is ``impossible to predict, with any confidence, which nations, combinations of nations or non-state actors may threaten U.S. interests at home and abroad.'' And when the department claims they have adopted an approach to force development based on capabilities rather than threat-based requirements and will need a ``flexible, adaptive, and decisive joint capabilities that can operate across the full spectrum of military contingencies.''--what exactly does that mean? Is that the kind of bureaucratic ``gobbledygook'' and uncertainty upon which we should be considering closing our military bases. I do not think so and neither do other Americans. For example, retired Navy captain Ralph Dean succinctly observed in a recent Maine newspaper column that: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld released his 20-year force structure plan as an input to BRAC. Surprisingly, it showed virtually no changes in overall force structure during that long period. This may indicate that DoD is unable to make projections with any degree of certainty. This uncertainty must be addressed, because BRAC actions are irreversible. Let there be no mistake, as the President has said, our global war on terror will be a long struggle that is just beginning. These are unconventional threats for an unconventional era--how can we possibly project outward 20 years to know our needs? At the same time, we are learning that quantity of troops matters--as DoD was forced to recalibrate and send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. Moreover, this very legislation before us would authorize an increase in the Army's end strength of 30,000 soldiers--yet we want to reduce our number of bases? Indeed, the BRAC 2005 force structure plan addresses neither the potential surge requirements we may face in this protracted struggle nor the need for more troops. In its May 2004 report, the GAO has said: The department must consider ongoing force transformation initiatives in its BRAC analysis as well as factor in relevant assumptions about the potential for future force structure changes--changes that will likely occur long after the timeframes for the 2005 BRAC round. This includes consideration of future surge requirements. Frankly, there is even confusion between DoD and the services. On May 12, 2004 the Boston Globe reported the Navy is conducting an internal study and considering slashing its attack submarine force by as much as a third as they work toward their 2006 budget submission. This despite the fact that information we have been provided by the Navy indicates no changes in the Future Year Defense Plan. Where is the coordination in assessing the threat or planning force structure needs? And what of the ``joint'' war-fighting plans that are still being developed? If BRAC decisions are based on untested and untried ``joint'' concepts, then DoD could well face limited options down the line because of limitations of facilities if all the anticipated efficiencies are not realized. The Force Structure Plan clearly states the limits of their excess capacity analysis, saying: The results presented in this section cannot be used to project the number of potential BRAC closures or realignments that could be achieved in each installation category. Without this projection, how are the savings from BRAC being estimated and what is driving the scope of BRAC? What is needed is a rigorous analysis that determines the number of BRAC closures or realignments that are expected to be achieved for each type of military installation. Finally, the Pentagon was also instructed to consider the effects of overseas bases and joint tenancy in its assessment of excess capacity, and while the submitted Force Structure Plan tells us how many installations the US currently operates overseas, it provides no information about the number of bases and troops expected to be located overseas over the next 20 years or where these bases would be located nor does it detail the functions that are being considered for joint operations and how much efficiency is expected to be gained by these changes. The amendment proposed by Senators Dorgan, Lott, Feinstein and myself ensure that Congress is provided with sufficient time to deliberate on what infrastructure is needed to provide for our Nation's security now and well into the future. While I would have preferred to cancel the process altogether, the amendment offered today ensures that these irrevocable decisions are made with sufficient deliberation. The amendment provides for an expedited consideration by Congress for a domestic base closure round in 2007--after the completion of an overseas BRAC action. The amendment is a recognition that the operation, sustainment, and recapitalization of unneeded overseas bases diverts scarce resources from the nation's defense capabilities and requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a management structure and initiate a process for eliminating excess physical capacity at overseas bases. After conducting this review of overseas facilities, the Secretary would provide to Congress and the BRAC Commission a list of military installations, a detailing of the reassignments of troops and equipment from affected bases, and an estimate of the cost savings to be achieved. The Secretary would also be required to provide a certification whether a domestic round of BRAC would be necessary. The BRAC Commission would then evaluate the Secretary's recommendations and provide an assessment of the extent that the Secretary accounted for the final report of the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States, whether the Secretary maximized the amount of savings and whether a domestic BRAC round in 2007 is warranted. After the BRAC Commission completes its work, there is a process for an expedited consideration of an additional domestic BRAC. The amendment requires a ``joint resolution'' be introduced within 10 days after the President transmits to Congress an approval and certification for a domestic base closure round. If passed by Congress, then within 15 days, the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register the selection criteria to be used and a schedule for the BRAC round, and the domestic BRAC would proceed as originally planned. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. military has approximately 197,000 active-duty personnel stationed permanently outside the United States--that is 14 percent of our active duty military and 19 percent of the Army active-duty forces. And, while the Secretary of Defense has estimated an excess capacity of 29 percent in the Army domestic infrastructure, the Congressional Budget Office, in a May 2004 report on overseas basing has said: Because of the various rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC) that have occurred since the late 1980s, the Army has little excess capacity at its bases to absorb so many additional troops and units. And according to former DoD Comptroller Dov Zakheim: BRAC does . . . make it difficult to move our forces directly to where they ought to go if you don't want them to be overseas. Most of these overseas troops are stationed in Germany and South Korea, where the United States currently maintains 330 bases at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion annually. The administration has raised a number of concerns about these forces, including the fact that Army forces in Germany may not be able to deploy quickly to conflicts in Africa or the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia. Additionally, many of the bases in South Korea, which were formerly isolated, are becoming increasingly surrounded by commercial and residential communities, leading to greater friction with the local communities and limiting the training that can be conducted. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that removing the Army forces from Germany and South Korea and relocating them in the United States would not affect deployment times, make available 4,000 to 10,000 more troops for sustained overseas operations, and reduce family separation by 22 percent, improving troop morale and retention rates. These changes would also result in an estimated annual savings of $1.2 billion. More important than financial considerations, today's uncertain environment requires our troops to be more agile and mobile and the time is long past to reevaluate an overseas base structure that was developed to meet the threats of the Cold War. Some people contend that the overseas basing decisions will be completed in time to be accounted for by the BRAC process. But the current legislation provides for the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States to report on their findings to Congress no later than December 31, 2004--only 4\1/2\ months before the BRAC decisions are to be completed. This timeline does not allow the Department of Defense to fully account for these overseas facilities in their domestic BRAC analysis nor does it include any time to include any of the changes to the report that Congress may determine are necessary. Significant changes are being considered for our overseas bases and forces and these decisions potentially have an enormous impact on our domestic base infrastructure. According to the Congressional Budget Office ``the need to house forces in the United States that are now stationed overseas could preclude some'' of the closures in the upcoming BRAC round. I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational assets. And I want to make absolutely sure that this nation maintains the military infrastructure it will require in the years to come to support the war on terror and protect our homeland. The amendment my colleagues and I have proposed today will ensure that the evaluation of military facilities by the Department of Defense, both overseas and within the United States, is conducted with rigor and in a deliberative, systematic manner. As Senator Hutchison correctly observed: It would be irresponsible to build on an inefficient, obsolete overseas base structure, as we face new strategic threats in the 21st century, taking valuable dollars needed elsewhere. Likewise, it would be irresponsible to continue with a domestic BRAC without a complete understanding and evaluation of our overseas basing requirements. This amendment will allow Congress time to exercise its oversight responsibilities and ensure that these important decisions-- which cannot be undone--are serving the Nation's interests. In closing, I believe that we must give the Department the time it needs to conduct a legitimate analysis of our security environment and the underpinning force structure and infrastructure requirements. Therefore I urge my colleagues to support the amendment before us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment that has been offered by Senator Dorgan, Senator Lott, Senator Feinstein, and myself to refocus the provisions that are included in the underlying legislation that authorizes a base closure round in 2005 from our domestic installation to our overseas military infrastructure. I do so because I am firmly convinced today in this unprecedented era of global war on terrorism, as we continue operations in Afghanistan to root out the seeds of terror, as we are engaged in ensuring a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, it makes no sense to consider closing nearly a quarter of our domestic military infrastructure in addition to the 21 percent that has already been lost over the past 15 years in America. I arrive at this debate as a veteran of a number of issues that are key to our deliberations. First, I have been all too intimately acquainted with every base closure round since the first occurred in 1987, as well as the accompanying pitfalls, failures, and foibles of each--and there are many. Also, in my capacity of both the House and the Senate, as ranking member of the Operations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House that oversaw terrorism and in my position in the Senate Armed Services Committee and former Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee. I cannot and will not ignore the pattern I have discerned of the failure to ``connect'' the critical ``dots'' in the past, and the implications of these shortfalls on our ability to project into the future. What most concerns me is the inadequacy of the military's threat assessment projections time after time accompanying the requirement, including enacting BRAC legislation in 1991 that stipulates the Secretary of Defense ``shall include a force structure plan for the Armed Forces based on an assessment by the Secretary of the probable threats to the national security during the six-year period beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget request is made.'' It is very important to understand the requirements and the obligations of the Defense Department. They have to make those projections. Unfortunately, whether they make those projections 20 years into the future or 6-year projections, the track record has been poor. I can say this because I have reviewed the military threat assessments not only contained in the force structure plans the Department provided, along with their justifications for the 1991 base- closing round, but also the 1993 and 1995 BRAC rounds, as well as other key assessments made by the Department during that time, such as the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, the 1997 Quadrennial Review, and the 2001 Quadrennial Review. Specifically, I wondered how actual events and results matched their expectations. How did their threat assessments dovetail with the new realities, such as terrorism, asymmetric threat, and homeland security or homeland defense? I then went back a little more than 21 years ago to the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and looked at significant terrorist events directed against Americans throughout the world, as chronicled by the State Department. I put it on this chart because I think it is important to recall exactly what the events have been over the last 20 years with respect to terrorism. A defining moment in 1983 was when our marines were under attack, when 242 brave marines were lost because of a suicide bomber. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked, and U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was killed. Then, of course, we had the Achille Lauro. Then we had, of course, the Berlin disco that was bombed, and a number of American soldiers were killed or injured. We also know what happened with Pan Am flight 103 that was destroyed over Lockerbie. These are a few of the significant events that occurred throughout the 1980s. In fact, I am illustrating only a few of the 17 events that were identified by the State Department where Americans were the target of terrorists. Yet, after all these events, let's look at what was identified in these base-closing reports that are required under the legislation. We had a four-page report that was a result of the 1991 base-closing round, and they submitted a military assessment for the years, because they have to project out. In this case, it was 1992 to 1997. What did it have to say? The most enduring concern for U.S. leadership is that the Soviet Union remains the one country in the world capable of destroying the U.S. with a single devastating attack. . . . [T]he Soviet state still will have millions of well armed men in uniform and will remain the strongest military force on the Eurasian landmass. But when it came to terrorism, they said: Our efforts to promote regional stability and to enhance the spread of democracy will continue to be challenged by insurgencies and terrorism. So there was only a passing mention of this issue as an impediment to regional stability and the enhancement of democracy worldwide. But there was no discussion of it as a context, as a threat to the United States. There was no mention, as you can see, of it as an asymmetric threat or as a threat to our homeland security. And then what happened? On February 26, 1993, we had the bombing of the World Trade Center. It was badly damaged, and 1,000 people were injured, leaving 6 people dead. Yet the military threat assessment, issued less than 1 month later--it would have been a matter of weeks later--in the 1993 base- closing round report again referred to the regional crises with North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, the Middle East, and Persian Gulf States. It went on to say: [T]he future world military situation will be characterized by regional actors with modern destructive weaponry, including chemical and biological weapons, modern ballistic missiles and, in some cases, nuclear weapons. But note in this report there was suddenly, once again, no mention of terrorism after the World Trade Center bombing less than a few weeks later, maybe a month. And as to an asymmetric threat? Nothing. And homeland security? No reference whatsoever to homeland security. Furthermore, the bottom-up review that occurs within the Defense Department, which is a wide-ranging review of strategy, resources, and programs to delineate our national defense strategy for the future, that was signed out in October of 1993--and, of course, that was about 8 months later--described four new dangers to U.S. interests after the end of the cold war. Again, no mention of particular asymmetric threats, homeland security, or anything with respect to terrorism. Even at that point, they did mention state-sponsored terrorism as a reference, but, again, they stated the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was the result of the mastermind Sheikh Omar Rahman, who was a non-state-sponsored terrorist. But, as you can see, in 1993, then, we had two Defense Department reports, one in response to the requirements under the base-closing process, and the second one was a bottom-up review by the Defense Department within the same year, having the foreknowledge of what happened and what transpired at the World Trade Center, and nothing was referenced with respect to terrorism, asymmetric threat, or homeland security. The timeline continues to 1995. We have the Tokyo subway with the sarin gas. Ironically, that is sarin gas equivalent to what was discovered in Iraq last week. I was stunned then to look at what happened in the 1995 force structure report that was also required in response to the base closure round of 1995 that had to address the threats between 1995 and 2001. Other than the removal of a few sentences, it was exactly identical, the same as the 1993 BRAC threat assessment. So much for rigorous analysis. Still there was no mention of terrorism, no mention of asymmetric threat, and no references to homeland security. And this is less--less--than 6 years before September 11, when we had those catastrophic and devastating events. Remember, this particular base closure round is required to project out 20 years. So now we are referring to a base-closing force structure plan in 1995, given all the preceding events of terrorism in which Americans were victims and a target, and there was no identification of terrorism being a major threat to the United States, or that there was an asymmetric threat, or that there was a threat to our homeland security. This was 6 years out. After the 1995 report, we go to 1996. We have Khobar Towers. We have the East Africa Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Then, of course, we have the USS Cole in the year 2000. Again, we do not have any identification that we are now being threatened, in these base-closing force structure plans, in our homeland security, or by the threat of worldwide terrorism. By 1997, the Department was acknowledging the fact terrorists using asymmetric means might attack the homeland. Again, I might add, yet it still remained a fourth-tier concern in their Quadrennial Defense Review--a fourth-tier concern--in spite of the continuing onslaught of terrorism around the world. Then, of course, we have all the preceding events. So this, in my opinion, raises some serious concerns about the ability of the Defense Department to project into the future, and particularly when talking about projecting 20 years out. I happened to review the Quadrennial Defense Review report issued in 2001. Mind you, that was issued 19 days after the attack of the World Trade Center on September 11, and it obviously identified that we were being challenged by adversaries who possessed a wide range of capabilities regarding asymmetric approaches. Obviously, at that point it was not an astute observation. But interestingly, in examining the QDR, there was a lack of mentioning al-Qaida by name--not once. In the 70-page report, there is not one mention of al-Qaida, when we are talking about 19 days after the events at the World Trade Center on September 11. I think this all indicates the significant dose of skepticism with which we should examine the current force structure plan and the accompanying threat assessment submitted by the Department to justify the base-closing rounds of 2005. Considering that we now base decisions on a 20-year assessment--never mind just 6, and even the 6-year projections proved spotty at best--and considering the volatile times in which we live, I have to say that what we received, over a month later than was required by the base-closing legislation--and I might add it is about what we expected, not much--indeed, my sense is they took these assumptions that were made for the Future Year Defense Plan that the Department submits as part of their overall budget authorization and simply extended it to 2009. But even after 20 years of constant assault, of terrorism on Americans either here or abroad, the Defense Department still has not matched its force structure with those assumptions. Indeed, they have avoided the entire issue of these threats that the Nation will face over the next 20 years by claiming that today's security environment ``is impossible to predict with any confidence which nations, combination of nations, or non-state actors may threaten U.S. interests at home and abroad.'' And when the Department claims they have adopted an approach to force development based on capabilities rather than threat-based requirements and will need a flexible, adaptive, and joint capability that can operate across the full spectrum of military contingencies, exactly what does that mean? That is a very good question. What does that mean? Clearly, it indicates an uncertainty upon which we should be considering closing military bases. It is obvious that the Defense Department is not certain, and this is not the basis upon which we can make decisions that are irreversible when it comes to our military infrastructure. Indeed, a retired Navy captain, Ralph Dean, succinctly placed a column in a Maine newspaper where he said: Surprisingly it showed-- In reference to this force structure plan that was recently submitted by the Defense Department-- virtually no changes in overall force structure during that long period. This may indicate the Department of Defense is unable to make projections about the future threat with any degree of certainty. This uncertainty must be addressed, because BRAC actions are irreversible. Exactly. And therein lies the problem. We are required to make decisions on force structure, on threat assessments based on plans that are submitted to the Congress and to the base-closing commission. We are going to make permanent decisions. We cannot retreat from those decisions once they are made. You cannot retract those decisions once they are put in motion. Let's look at the overall picture in the context of the threat environment in which we live today. How can we possibly project out 20 years to ascertain our military requirements? We are learning in Iraq that the quantity of troops matters, as DOD is forced to recalibrate and send an additional 20,000 troops there. Moreover, this underlying legislation, the Department of Defense reauthorization legislation we are currently considering, is actually increasing the Army's end strength of more than 30,000 soldiers. Yet at the same time we are suggesting that we are going to reduce the number of our bases at home? Indeed, the BRAC force structure plan of 2005 addresses neither the potential surge requirements that we may confront in these protracted struggles, nor the need for more troops. Indeed, there seems to be some confusion within the Defense Department between DOD and the services. I saw a report the other day that interested me that appeared in the Boston Globe making reference to the fact that the Navy is planning to inactivate a number of submarines over the next few years. It was reported that the Navy is conducting a study that might reduce the attack submarine force substantially downward for the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, and we are told there are no changes, as indicated in the Future Year Defense Plan, upon which the force structure plan that was submitted for this base-closing round was predicated. So how can we be certain of the type of projections the Defense Department is going to make beyond the year 2009? There is no mention of any changes up to 2009 in terms of its force structure requirements. How then are we going to base the kind of decisions within the base-closing process when we have not had an adequate projection of threat assessment for the next 20 years and what it will require in terms of force and also infrastructure? And what are the joint warfighting plans that are still being developed? If BRAC decisions are based on untested joint concepts, then the Department of Defense could well face limited options down the road because of the limitations of facilities. I think it doesn't make any sense at this point to continue with the domestic base-closing round without a complete understanding and evaluation of our overseas basing requirements. This amendment will allow Congress time to conduct adequate oversight to ensure that these invaluable decisions that we will be making, permanent decisions, irreversible decisions, do not have implications for the future of our capacity to respond to the changing threat environment in which we currently are. I am hoping that Members of this Senate, however they felt in the past about the base-closing process, will understand there is an enormous gap between threat assessments and force structure projections by the Defense Department and all of the previous base-closure rounds, and that is a serious problem in the world in which we live and certainly in the context of needing more flexibility when we are conducting a war on terrorism. As the President said, this is going to be an ongoing struggle for a long time in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we have to reconsider and look abroad for our overseas facilities as opposed to those at home. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments. First, with respect to overseas facilities, in this legislation, under the current law, it requires the Department of Defense to submit that report only 4\1/2\ months prior to when the base-closure commission's final decisions are completed. I think that is going to be a totally inadequate period of time in which to make a current examination as to whether or not to close the facilities. You can have an impact at home on domestic installations. We are talking about increasing the number of troops in the underlying legislation. Where are they going to be housed? There are a lot of decisions. We have never thoroughly evaluated overseas installations. I think that needs a thorough examination. We deserve that. Frankly, I do not have confidence in the process. I can tell my colleague, as the Senator from Mississippi has indicated, I have no confidence in the integrity of the process. They have not been in position to ever not only provide a credible force structure plan in identifying the future threats, they have not been accurate in their projections. Secondly, if you talk about the examination of savings--and I did not get into that subject because that is a wide-ranging subject--GAO, in a report yesterday, said the Department of Defense does not have any adequate methodology by which to ascertain whether they have made or achieved any savings. In fact, there may be one base closing round that has achieved any savings in the first 6 years--maybe. We are going to be talking about spending a lot of money before we even get to that process even if we do because it costs so much in remediation in the cost of closing down those facilities, in conjunction with the war on terror, in conjunction with the conflict in Iraq, and all the potential costs associated with that which remain unknown in the foreseeable future. That is why I say to the chairman, I think it is important, not for the sake of expediency and efficiency, but for the sake of fairness in looking abroad as to exactly what we need. We have more than 700 facilities that have not heretofore been examined. With regard to forward-deployed forces, many nations would not allow us to put our troops there when it came to the conflict--Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The time has come to look at this situation very differently. We are in a very different environment, as the chairman well knows, and I appreciate that. But I think the time has come to understand there are huge gaps in understanding what our future threat environment is going to be all about, and that has enormous implications for the future. Finally, may I mention, in this legislation there is a joint resolution of approval by the Congress in 1997 to make a decision as to whether to proceed to an additional base-closing round.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will defer my statement until after the policy luncheon at 2:15, but I want to say I truly appreciate the leadership of Senator Dorgan and Senator Lott in this matter. It is critical we concentrate on this particular issue in terms of the impact for the future. Senator Lott indicated so eloquently that there is no question there is a problem with this process. It is not transparent. We are in a different threat environment than we have ever been. Clearly, we have to reevaluate, reassess the base-closing process in that light. I will defer all of my comments until 2:15. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to speak about osteoporosis and to remind my colleagues that May is Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month. Osteoporosis today is a major public health threat for an estimated 44 million Americans, or 55 percent of the population age 50 and over. At least ten million Americans are estimated to have osteoporosis and almost 34 million more are estimated to have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk for the disease. Of the 10 million Americans estimated to have osteoporosis, 20 percent are men. Current statistics show that one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have an osteoporosis -related fracture in her or his lifetime. To put this into perspective, as I look around this chamber, these statistics mean that more than 25 of our group of 100 Senators could develop osteoporosis. And, while osteoporosis is thought of as an older person's disease, it strikes men and women of all ethnic groups at any age. The literal meaning of the word ``osteoporosis'' is ``porous bone.'' Osteoporosis is a devastating disease that causes bones to thin and break easily--especially bones in the hip, spine and wrist. It is known as a silent disease because most people don't even know that they have osteoporosis until after they have broken a bone. Not only are these bone fractures very painful and devastating to an individual's quality of life, but they can also be life-threatening, especially for older men. Nearly one in four hip fracture patients who are age 50 and over, and average of 24 percent, die in the year following their fracture. And the 80,000 men who suffer hip fractures each year are nearly twice as likely to die in the year after the fracture as women their age. Apart from the severe life-or-death and quality of life consequences that bone fractures can have, osteoporosis has become a major health care expense. In 2001, osteoporosis cost the country $17 billion, or $47 million a day in direct costs, according to a report of the National Osteoporosis Foundation, ``America's Bone Health: The State of Osteoporosis and Low Bone Mass in Our Nation,'' issued 2 years ago. Of course, those figures would be even higher today. The ramifications of osteoporosis go beyond our country's health care system and are truly international in scope. The World Health Organization considers osteoporosis to be the second leading health problem in the world. In spite of these alarming statistics, we are making progress and developing a growing awareness and commitment to confronting this disease. Twenty years ago, few people understood the terms ``osteoporosis,'' and no medical therapy existed to treat the disease or help prevent its onset. Today, osteoporosis research and education are helping us make great strides. People are far better informed about the causes of this disease and steps to take for prevention and treatment. Building strong bones during childhood, adolescence and as young adults can help individuals avoid the disease later in life. Four simple steps can help prevent osteoporosis and optimize bone health: Eating a balanced diet rich in calcium and vitamin D; doing weight- bearing exercises on a regular basis; leading a healthy lifestyle without smoking or excessive alcohol; and having bone density tests and treating low bone mass, as recommended. Preventive measures and treatment--even after a fracture--will minimize further bone loss and help prevent future disability. Along those lines, I have introduced two bills, the Osteoporosis Federal Employee Health Benefits Standardization Act of 2003, S. 417, which ensures that coverage of bone mass measurements is provided under the Federal health benefits program, and the Medicare Osteoporosis Measurement Act of 2003, S. 419, which amends Medicare to include coverage of bone mass measurements under Medicare part B for all individuals, including estrogen-deficient women, at clinical risk for osteoporosis. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working towards passage of these bills this year. Injuries and death from bone fractures can be greatly reduced with prevention, early detection, and the new forms of treatment that are now available. We should all take the initiative and keep one thought foremost in our minds: It's never too early or too late to start.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to speak to one provision in the FSC/ETI tax legislation we are considering on the Senate floor which is very imporant--the broadband expensing provision. This provision would allow investments in broadband infrastructure, or high- speed Internet access, to be deducted for tax purposes in the year the investment was made rather than over several years. The simple point of this provision is to stimulate new technology investment. We have worked on the bill since mid-2000, and it is time to see it enacted. I am particularly pleased to have worked with Senator Rockefeller on this issue and to join him in sponsoring legislation to provide a broadband tax incentive. He and I go back quite a few years on technology matters. We worked side by side to ensure that all of our Nation's schools are wired for basic Internet service, and that has been a tremendous success. I also appreciate the effective work Senator Burns has done to fight for broadband investment. It is time to move beyond basic dial-up service. Dial-up is adequate for sending e-mail, and sharing short documents, and browsing the web slowly. But if you need to receive information quickly, or if you need something that is data-intensive like photographs or graphics or lengthy documents, then you need broadband. Unfortunately, in rural States like mine, broadband deployment is not proceeding quickly enough. And that is what this provision is designated to address--the rural and low-income areas where broadband generally is not already or readily available. It is designed to help us move to the next generation of broadband that some countries are already rolling out. There are times when it makes sense to help the market deploy technology more quickly, and this is one of those times. Why? Because here we are taking about infrasturcture, and the Government can help ensure that all our citizens have access to basic infrastructure so all Americans regardless of their zip code will have the chance to participate in--and succeed under--the tremendous benefits of new technologies. It is critical we act quickly in this area. A report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development finds that the United States has dropped to sixth in the world in percentage of broadband penetration. We must not sit idly by and allow the United States to fall further behind in this crucial area. In addition to accelerating the deployment of broadband, the provision will also infuse immediate stimulus for the economy by encouraging firms to invest in high-speed telecom equipment. Furthermore, these new capital expenditures will create jobs--equipment manufcturers will expand their production capabilities to meet increased demand, and broadband providers with hire additional employees to install this new infrastructure. We must engage on this issue and we must do it now. I thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership and partnership on this issue, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee for their support, and I look forward to passing this provision and seeing it enacted this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Wyden, Coleman, Baucus, Brownback, and Rockefeller to offer an amendment in recognition of the critical need to provide economic development assistance to Americans across this nation that have been negatively impacted by trade. Trade Adjustment Assistance--TAA-- programs are essential in bringing short-term financial and retraining assistance to workers who have been displaced due to imports or shifts in production. I have long supported the TAA program as it has helped those in Maine and across the Nation who are unemployed because of trade to find new employment and gain the appropriate skills these new jobs require, and this amendment builds upon this crucial program. What we have before us is an amendment which recognizes that our desire to trade should be balanced with our ability to assist those adversely affected by trade. Our amendment is a comprehensive package of TAA improvements and additions that further seeks to better the conditions for America's workers and communities who find themselves negatively impacted in the wake of rapid international trade liberalization. Our amendment contains provisions to assist trade-impacted communities similar to those included in my bill, The Trade for America's Communities Act, which I introduced last year. My legislation gives the Department of Commerce the authority to use the revenue collected from tariffs--which currently goes to corporations--to provide technical assistance to communities that have been negatively impacted by trade. The bill--and portions of this amendment--helps communities to develop strategic plans that would focus on the creation and retention of jobs and to promote economic diversification. Our amendment also makes critical TAA changes in relation to the service sector. We need to recognize that trade affects not just manufacturing sectors of the economy, but service industries as well. Current TAA provisions cover manufacturing workers but exclude the 80 percent of American non-farm jobs in the service sector. Our amendment makes existing TAA benefits available to service workers whose jobs move overseas and increases training funds to match anticipated enrollment. This provision is sorely needed in places like Lewiston, ME, where 84 service sector layoffs occurred at the ICT call center, or 30 workers at Prexar in Bangor, ME--all service sector workers. When you start adding these types of layoffs to that of production in small towns across the country, the impact is sizable, making the distinction between service and production workers irrelevant. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths of trade are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation. Beyond these provisions, the amendment also provides important improvements to the refundable health care tax credit for laid-off workers and retirees that was originally created in 2002 as part of the Trade Promotion Authority Act. Two years ago, I was proud to work closely as a member of the Finance Committee with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley to create the HCTC as a means for displaced workers to continue receiving the health care benefits they lost as a consequence of trade. I worked to bring this benefit to fruition to help these displace workers get the health coverage they need when faced with the loss of employment because the assistance option at that time, namely COBRA, was too expensive to be feasible. I will continue my efforts to see that it is properly administered and adequately received by TAA-certified beneficiaries. There have been countless situations prior to introducing the HCTC where the workers were left without health care insurance, and this is a situation that we have only begun to remedy by creating the HCTC. Unfortunately, recent studies have demonstrated that the tax credit has not been widely utilized by workers. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that only about 10 percent of workers certified under the TAA program have applied for the health care tax credit since its enactment. In fact, according to Blue-Cross/Blue- Shield, only about 100 people in Maine are signed up for the HCTC. In 2002, the original Senate version that I worked on called for a 75 percent HCTC benefit. Unfortunately this benefit was reduced to 65 percent in conference. That is why I am pleased that our amendment today will restore this benefit to its originally proposed level. This adjustment to the HCTC will allow more TAA-certified workers to take advantage of the tax credit by making health care more affordable as they seek new employment. As many of my colleagues would agree, TAA- certified workers may still find it difficult to cover 25 percent of the cost of premiums, but it is surely a step in the right direction to making the HCTC more accessible. This past February, I met with union members in my state who were laid off as a result of the shutdown of the Eastern Pulp and Paper mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME, to talk about their needs. During the meeting, I heard first hand that the 35 percent of the cost of the health insurance premiums under the HCTC program is still too high when most displaced workers are only receiving a maximum of $292.00 per week in unemployment insurance--and premiums can be as high as $559.91 per month for an individual and as high as $1,483.75 for a family. The union officials also informed me that in the case of the Brewer, ME, mill, of the 350 employees affected by the shutdown, only 6 took advantage of the HCTC. Frankly, if the credit is unworkable and unattainable, then there is no point in having it in the first place. This cost is a real stumbling block for displaced workers, and we must look at this program on a basic level of affordability for impacted individuals. Another problem that was identified to me during this meeting is that the statute is unclear and too restrictive. This has made administration of the credit difficult. For example, while the HCTC is refundable, the IRS currently does not advance the first month's tax credit, which means the displaced worker must pay for the entire health care premium the first month--100 percent of the cost. This, in many cases, causes the worker to not take advantage of the HCTC because they simply cannot afford that first payment. In the case of the Eastern Pulp and Paper mills, a worker and his or her spouse would have to come up with $1,500 that first month. Clearly this would turn a prospective beneficiary away right at the beginning. The need to streamline the administrative process of the HCTC is paramount to making it more accessible. We attempt to remedy this situation in this amendment by improving access to the credit as well as making it more effective. Not only does the amendment increase the credit percentage from 65 percent to 75 percent of the individuals' health care premiums, but it also instructs the IRS to provide an expedited refund of the first month's tax credit. Workers in my home state of Maine who are being laid off have told me that they just cannot afford the cost of health insurance. This amendment will make health care more accessible for this population. Beyond expanding the size of the credit, our amendment also provides important outreach initiatives to get the word out to eligible workers about the existence of the credit. For example, the amendment allows states, to use funds from a National Emergency Grant, to provide outreach and marketing to inform individuals of the available health insurance options, including low cost options, that qualify for the health care tax credit. Maine has already done this with great success which is a testament to why we need to make this a viable option nationwide. While this may seem like a simple change, it is one of great impact, as too many eligible workers are unaware that these benefits even exist. Overall, these reforms to this vital health care tax credit are critical to get workers and retires the information and the access they need to ensure health insurance coverage. The cost of this amendment is estimated to be about $5 billion over the next 10 years for the expanded TAA benefits and the improvements to the health care tax credit for TAA recipients. Our amendment proposes to offset this cost by closing a loophole in the administration of the earned income tax credit--EITC--that is allowing individuals to inappropriately claim refundable tax benefits. Current, Social Security numbers are provided for to individuals for employment and to obtain Federal and State benefits. Under current law, individuals are required to have a work related Social Security in order to claim the earned income tax credit in every situation but one: individuals who have attained a Social Security number solely in order to gain State benefits. Currently, the IRS is unable to differentiate between an individual who has a work or non-work related Social Security number. Therefore, individuals who are not working but have a non-work related Social Security number are able to receive EITC without having been qualified to do so. The offset provision in this amendment would require every individual claiming the EITC to have a Social Security number that is valid for employment. Thus, individuals with non-work related Social Security numbers, regardless of why they were offered, would not qualify. This provision was included in the President's budget and is estimated to raise about $5.7 billion over 10 years, by the IRS, Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget and fully offsets the cost of this amendment by recouping the lost revenue from this unintended loophole in the law. I understand that there is technical discrepancy between Joint Tax and the Treasury on the scoring of this offset. While its clear that it will provide billions in savings to the Government, I intend to work with Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus to ensure that this entire bill meets the requirements of the Budget Act and is fully offset according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office; the official score keepers for Congress, as well as the Department of the Treasury. The fact is trade results in both the formation of new jobs as well as the loss of others. These assistance programs recognize this reality and help give the American worker the education, training and skills they need to find another job and continue in gainful employment--while at the same time assisting them with the financial means to sustain their families as they pursue the necessary retraining. Since 1997, over 10,000 Mainers have applied for TAA benefits. Clearly the need for these programs is as strong as ever. In small towns where the livelihood of the local economy depends on one industry, one plant or one company that is suffering under trade liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper mill, or textile mill shuts down. I have personally witnessed time and time again the hardship that trade liberalization policies can cause. In towns like East Millinocket and Millinocket, ME, where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt; in Waterville, ME, where Hathaway Shirt shut down as a result of shirt production being moved overseas; or most recently the Eastern Pulp & Paper mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME, local economies were sent into disarray. These closures have a ripple effect throughout the region. Efforts were made in these communities to form transition teams to assist the impacted workers find the assistance resources necessary to survive financially through these difficult times. I helped lead the way to these assistance resources, but I continue to recognize that these communities need much broader assistance. That is just part of the reason I have been so adamant in my support for improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance. With the momentum provided by the passage and implementation of Trade Promotion Authority, the President has moved aggressively on an agenda of bilateral, regional and global agreements that promote the liberalization of trade and seek to grow the U.S. economy. As the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities for prosperity and growth. But in order for this to work, free trade has to be fair and we must be diligent in enforcing the rules to ensure we are operating on a level playing field. At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing inputs come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in the U.S. economy. America's workers--both manufacturing and service sector--and communities are often faced with difficult realities in the rapidly changing nature of international trade liberalization. However, while technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization and enforcement is the chosen policy of government. Change and progress can be good, but we must never ignore or forget those Americans who find themselves unfairly treated in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult decisions to turn these challenges into opportunities for this Nation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment and join my colleagues as we continue to recognize and address the oft-ignored consequences of international trade liberalization. At the end of the day, it is the people and communities of this nation that matter most, and when policies which hurt their economic livelihoods are promulgated by government, it is incumbent upon all of us to find ways to help.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. To ensure that each center that meets the SBA performance thresholds continues to serve women entrepreneurs in every state and territory, I expect the SBA to fully expend all the funds reserved under this bill for women's sustainability grants. This amount should be sufficient to provide funding to eligible women's business centers in the sustainability program at or above the minimum grants awarded in fiscal year 2003 to women's business centers.