Olympia Snowe

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.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his question. As is evident in S. 1375, the bill to reauthorize the Small Business Administration, which passed the Senate last September, it is the intention of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and of the full Senate to continue funding eligible Women's Business Centers before opening new centers. This legislation supports that important objective. To that end, I expect the SBA to award Women's Business Center grants for the coming fiscal year to each Women's Business Center that is properly meeting performance standards. Congress has appropriated $12.5 million in fiscal year 2004 for the Women's Business Center program. If the amount reserved for sustainability centers under this legislation is insufficient to award the full amount of $125,000 to each sustainability center that meets those standards, I expect the SBA to adequately fund eligible centers.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Feinstein, Bingaman, and Cantwell, to introduce the Efficient Energy through Certified Technologies and Electricity Reliability Act, or EFFECTER Act of 2004. This legislation is urgently needed to help prevent the painful disruption of electric power blackouts, to save American consumers billions of dollars in wasted energy costs, to create jobs, and eventually, to avoid the needless emission of more greenhouse gas pollution than comes from our Nation's entire automotive fleet. According to a vast majority of the international scientific community, these anthropogenic, or manmade gases, especially carbon dioxide, are triggering dramatic changes in the Earth's climate system. This legislation will increase the security and reliability of the electric grid, while reducing natural gas and electricity prices though a gradual reduction in demand. Targeted tax incentives and standards for energy efficiency in commercial buildings, both new and retrofitted, will support the reduction in demand, as will the construction of new and retrofitted homes, including rental housing, and the use of more energy efficient appliances. Last March 4, 2003, I introduced, along with Senator Feinstein and others, the EFFECT Act of 2003, legislation that provided tax incentives for advanced levels of energy efficiency and peak power savings technologies in the buildings in which we live, work, and learn. Buildings consume some 35 percent of energy nationwide and are responsible for the emissions of a comparable percentage of pollution; very importantly, they account for more than one-half of the Nation's energy cost. I am pleased that many of these provisions were incorporated into the Senate energy bill that passed the Senate last fall, as I believe incentives provided through the tax system are necessary to complement existing energy efficiency policies at the Federal and State levels. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 that we are introducing today goes even further to encourage the EFFECT Act's tax incentives provided in the Senate's energy bill. It encourages administrative improvements, cost- efficiencies, and it also reflects a number of consensus provisions from H.R. 6, the Omnibus Energy Conference Report. These provisions mirror simple, common sense solutions, such as the mandatory electricity reliability provisions that have been held hostage to the ineffective ideas in the energy bill for some 4 years. We provide requirements for electric generating and transmission companies that encourage them to cooperate with each other on a mandatory basis, since--as we discovered last summer--relying on ``a gentleman's agreement'' doesn't work. The legislation also includes the Energy Savings Performance Contracts program, whose authorization expired in October of 2003. The ESPC program promotes consensus energy efficiency standards and reforms in Government contracting that save the taxpayers money. This bill requires the Federal Government, through its agencies, to acquire the most cost-effective as well as energy efficient products and to design buildings that can also save the Government money. Through what many characterized as an arcane scoring method, the CBO had incorporated a $3 billion cost increase into the program. However, in its wisdom, the Senate, in the FY05 Budget Resolution, appropriately directed the ESPS to score at zero. The result is a zero cost to this provision. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 addresses some of our largest energy problems head-on. Its incentives for energy efficiency are more effective and expedient than those in the energy bills currently being debated, yet they cost less to the Government. Indeed, over the long- term, they save the Federal Government money. Last August our country suffered a costly and harmful blackout that affected some 40 million Americans. Now, more than 6 months later, we have take little effective action to reduce the likelihood that additional blackouts could threaten lives and damage our economy again this year or any time in the near future. Our country currently has a need for more electric power plants, but we also need to protect our present electricity system from overload caused by wasted power use. By not pulling power from the grid at peak times in the next 10 years, the EFFECTER Act of 2004 will help America's building owners save more electricity--electriicty equivalent to the amount that would be produced by 350 new power plants of 400 MW capacity. Since last summer, natural gas and oil prices have skyrocketed. These high prices hurt Americans two ways: jobs are lost when high fuel prices force industry to cut back on production, and high heating bills strain family and business budgets. Saving wasted energy is one of the easiest and least costly ways to save money and save jobs. This legislation will save American families and business owners over $30 billion dollars annually by 2015, and prevent the waste of over 3.3 quads of natural gas annually--over 12 percent of total gas use. We all recognize the importance of increasing employment. Energy efficiency creates jobs both through manufacturing, designing and installing efficiency measures and through additional consumer and business spending--spending consumers can afford when their energy bills are lower. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 will produce over a half million new jobs in the American economy. As a Nation, we are engaged in a difficult debate about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, an effort we believe will protect the world's climate while assuring continued productivity for our economy. By reducing energy use that otherwise would be wasted in inefficient buildings, this legislation will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in an amount equivalent to the reduction that would occur if we took 25 percent of the cars off America's roads. These energy, money, and pollution saving solutions focus first on promoting fast acting energy efficiency both for natural gas and for peak electricity, which in turn also contributes to natural gas demand. Dramatic energy savings can be obtained by a carefully crafted package of low cost market-based incentives and consensus efficiency standards. I believe we have crafted just such a package and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that uses tested, performance-based and cost-effective approaches that truly help solve our most immediate energy problems.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Feinstein, Bingaman, and Cantwell, to introduce the Efficient Energy through Certified Technologies and Electricity Reliability Act, or EFFECTER Act of 2004. This legislation is urgently needed to help prevent the painful disruption of electric power blackouts, to save American consumers billions of dollars in wasted energy costs, to create jobs, and eventually, to avoid the needless emission of more greenhouse gas pollution than comes from our Nation's entire automotive fleet. According to a vast majority of the international scientific community, these anthropogenic, or manmade gases, especially carbon dioxide, are triggering dramatic changes in the Earth's climate system. This legislation will increase the security and reliability of the electric grid, while reducing natural gas and electricity prices though a gradual reduction in demand. Targeted tax incentives and standards for energy efficiency in commercial buildings, both new and retrofitted, will support the reduction in demand, as will the construction of new and retrofitted homes, including rental housing, and the use of more energy efficient appliances. Last March 4, 2003, I introduced, along with Senator Feinstein and others, the EFFECT Act of 2003, legislation that provided tax incentives for advanced levels of energy efficiency and peak power savings technologies in the buildings in which we live, work, and learn. Buildings consume some 35 percent of energy nationwide and are responsible for the emissions of a comparable percentage of pollution; very importantly, they account for more than one-half of the Nation's energy cost. I am pleased that many of these provisions were incorporated into the Senate energy bill that passed the Senate last fall, as I believe incentives provided through the tax system are necessary to complement existing energy efficiency policies at the Federal and State levels. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 that we are introducing today goes even further to encourage the EFFECT Act's tax incentives provided in the Senate's energy bill. It encourages administrative improvements, cost- efficiencies, and it also reflects a number of consensus provisions from H.R. 6, the Omnibus Energy Conference Report. These provisions mirror simple, common sense solutions, such as the mandatory electricity reliability provisions that have been held hostage to the ineffective ideas in the energy bill for some 4 years. We provide requirements for electric generating and transmission companies that encourage them to cooperate with each other on a mandatory basis, since--as we discovered last summer--relying on ``a gentleman's agreement'' doesn't work. The legislation also includes the Energy Savings Performance Contracts program, whose authorization expired in October of 2003. The ESPC program promotes consensus energy efficiency standards and reforms in Government contracting that save the taxpayers money. This bill requires the Federal Government, through its agencies, to acquire the most cost-effective as well as energy efficient products and to design buildings that can also save the Government money. Through what many characterized as an arcane scoring method, the CBO had incorporated a $3 billion cost increase into the program. However, in its wisdom, the Senate, in the FY05 Budget Resolution, appropriately directed the ESPS to score at zero. The result is a zero cost to this provision. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 addresses some of our largest energy problems head-on. Its incentives for energy efficiency are more effective and expedient than those in the energy bills currently being debated, yet they cost less to the Government. Indeed, over the long- term, they save the Federal Government money. Last August our country suffered a costly and harmful blackout that affected some 40 million Americans. Now, more than 6 months later, we have take little effective action to reduce the likelihood that additional blackouts could threaten lives and damage our economy again this year or any time in the near future. Our country currently has a need for more electric power plants, but we also need to protect our present electricity system from overload caused by wasted power use. By not pulling power from the grid at peak times in the next 10 years, the EFFECTER Act of 2004 will help America's building owners save more electricity--electriicty equivalent to the amount that would be produced by 350 new power plants of 400 MW capacity. Since last summer, natural gas and oil prices have skyrocketed. These high prices hurt Americans two ways: jobs are lost when high fuel prices force industry to cut back on production, and high heating bills strain family and business budgets. Saving wasted energy is one of the easiest and least costly ways to save money and save jobs. This legislation will save American families and business owners over $30 billion dollars annually by 2015, and prevent the waste of over 3.3 quads of natural gas annually--over 12 percent of total gas use. We all recognize the importance of increasing employment. Energy efficiency creates jobs both through manufacturing, designing and installing efficiency measures and through additional consumer and business spending--spending consumers can afford when their energy bills are lower. The EFFECTER Act of 2004 will produce over a half million new jobs in the American economy. As a Nation, we are engaged in a difficult debate about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, an effort we believe will protect the world's climate while assuring continued productivity for our economy. By reducing energy use that otherwise would be wasted in inefficient buildings, this legislation will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in an amount equivalent to the reduction that would occur if we took 25 percent of the cars off America's roads. These energy, money, and pollution saving solutions focus first on promoting fast acting energy efficiency both for natural gas and for peak electricity, which in turn also contributes to natural gas demand. Dramatic energy savings can be obtained by a carefully crafted package of low cost market-based incentives and consensus efficiency standards. I believe we have crafted just such a package and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that uses tested, performance-based and cost-effective approaches that truly help solve our most immediate energy problems.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, a bill that provides much-needed tax relief to our Nation's manufacturing base in a manner that will not only protect but will create jobs. Without question, passing this bipartisan legislation will provide a major boost to the manufacturing sector of our economy. Indeed, this legislation is necessary because our country's manufacturers are in desperate need of help. Not only has America been hard hit by slow worldwide growth, but also has sustained significant job losses during the last few years. Although the economic statistics for March are a positive improvement, there remains cause for concern when one considers the profound erosion of U.S. manufacturing jobs in recent years. The damage this sector has sustained is nothing short of stunning. From July 2000 through July 2003, nearly 2.8 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were eliminated. Incredibly, New England lost more than 214,000 manufacturing jobs in the decade between June 1993 and June 2003. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, between January 2001 through January 2004, manufacturing employment in our Nation declined by 16 percent. In New England, there was a 20 percent decrease in manufacturing employment during that same time period. This means that between January 2001 and January 2004, New England's manufacturing sector employment declined by an alarming 28 percent faster rate than it did nationally. My home State of Maine has been shedding manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate over the past decade--and all the more so in the past two years. From January 1993 through June 2003, a 10\1/2\ year period, Maine lost 18,900 manufacturing jobs. More specifically, from July 2000 to June 2003, Maine has lost 17,300 manufacturing jobs--the highest loss of any State during that time period. In addition to passing this legislation to reverse these trends, we are also here to replace the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income, FSC/ETI, rules. Congress enacted these rules to make U.S. exporters more competitive overseas by reducing their maximum income tax rate on export income from 35 percent to about 29.75 percent. This incentive is necessary to offset the disadvantage that U.S. exporters face vis-a-vis foreign competitors who benefit from a territorial tax regime. Nevertheless, the World Trade Organization, WTO, determined that the FSC/ETI rules provide an impermissible export subsidy, meaning Congress must repeal those rules or face over $4 billion in trade sanctions. Those sanctions began to take effect March 1. At the same time, repealing these rules will result in a nearly $50 billion tax increase on the manufacturing sector over the next ten years. Consequently, we need to replace the FSC/ETI regime with an appropriate substitute that not only complies with WTO rules but, more importantly, protects our own manufacturing base. Our objectives should therefore be clear: not only must we pass legislation to comply with international trade law, but more importantly, we need to offer our country's manufacturers with a solution that will jumpstart their production and create jobs, and we must do so right now. Were we to neglect this duty to ensure that our nation's manufacturers are simply given the chance to compete on a level playing field with foreign competitors, we would only be compounding the current situation--a result with which I am sure very few persons, particularly those workers who have lost their jobs would be pleased. Our task, then, is to identify the best way to ``reallocate'' the $50 billion in revenues that replacing the FSC/ETI rules will generate and ensure that those funds continue to benefit their original beneficiary--namely our manufacturers. For that reason, I am pleased that the main component of this bill provides direct tax relief to the manufacturing sector of our economy. By permitting manufacturers to exclude from tax a portion of their income earned directly from manufacturing operations that employ U.S. workers and are located in the United States, we will continue to ensure that our Nation's manufacturers are on a level playing field with foreign competitors, and we will accelerate the overall economic recovery that is so desperately needed and that is already underway. This legislation, therefore, provides poignant, targeted tax relief directly into the sector of our nation's economy that needs it most. In short, this income tax rate reduction for manufacturers will reduce their cost of doing business and increase their ability to compete in a global economy. Consequently, these businesses will be able to reinvest this savings directly into their operations, thereby increasing productivity and creating jobs. To achieve these results, it is essential that this tax relief must be available for all manufacturers--regardless of entity classification. As such, I along with several Senators worked hard during the Finance Committee's markup to insist that this bill apply to small businesses that operate in the form of S-corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole-proprietorships. With small business manufacturers constituting over 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing enterprises, employing 12 million people, and supplying more than 50 percent of the value-added during U.S. manufacturing, it is imperative that we not turn our backs on these hard working taxpayers. Despite the significance that small businesses play in our country's economy, and despite the fact that not every manufacturer operates as a corporation, some contend that in place of this bill's targeted manufacturing relief, a more appropriate course of action would be to provide an across-the-board 2 percent tax cut for all domestic corporations--regardless if they are manufacturers. I find this alternative problematic for two reasons. First, this proposition forgets the reason why we are here in the first place-- namely to reallocate tax cuts that Congress provided specifically for domestic manufacturers in an effort to maintain their international competitiveness. Doesn't it make sense to ensure that all manufacturers, which are the primary beneficiaries of the FSC/ETI rules, continue to be the primary beneficiary of its replacement legislation, particularly when the manufacturing sector of our economy is already struggling to compete and preserve jobs? After all, the main goal of this bill is to increase the competitiveness of our manufacturing base and stop the current job loss trend, meaning legislation that is not necessarily focused exclusively on manufacturing sector might fall short of this goal. Rather, the focus must remain on promoting domestic job creation, and the legislation before us accomplishes this task much more effectively than would an across-the-board tax cut that is exclusive to corporations. In addition, an across-the-board corporate rate cut limits this tax relief to only corporations--something that is simply unacceptable as small businesses, many of which are S-corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and sole-proprietorships, are the true engine that drives this economy and are responsible for a majority of domestic job creation. Indeed, small businesses account for 97.5 percent of Maine businesses . . . 98 percent of America's manufacturing enterprise . . . and contribute three-quarters of all new jobs nationwide. It is therefore imperative that this legislation, which is intended to ``Jumpstart Our Business Strength,'' include all manufacturers, particularly all small businesses, so that we continue this upward trend and reinvigorate America's entrepreneurial spirit. Along those lines, I am also pleased that Chairman Grassley incorporated several other of my provisions during the Finance Committee's markup of this bill. For example, current law permits small businesses to expense, rather than depreciate, up to $100,000 spent on equipment used in their trade or business. While this provision encourages capital investments and stimulates economic growth, the current phase-out limits the number of small businesses that can qualify. My provision already in this bill increases the phase out threshold-- thereby increasing the number of eligible small businesses for this much-needed tax relief. In turn, these taxpayers will be provided with greater incentive to expand their operations that will not only increase productivity but ultimately create jobs. Another one of my provisions included in this legislation is based on my bill S. 885--The Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003. In short, this bill provides that certain government- guaranteed debt capital of Debenture Small Business Investment Companies, SBICs, is excluded from the definition of ``debt'' for purposes of the unrelated businesses taxable income rules. This change is necessary because under current law, potential tax- exempt investors such as pension funds and universities are dissuaded from investing in small businesses due to the tax liability that would result from the SBICs. By eliminating this problem and expanding the capital available for SBICs to invest in the nation's small businesses at the modest rate of $1 million per year, this provision has the potential to result in $500-$600 million of new capital investments in SBICs, which in turn will create thousands of jobs each year. Furthermore, this bill includes specific provisions at my urging that will benefit greatly many taxpayers in my home State of Maine. In committee, I worked to ensure that the tax relief in this bill was extended to ``unprocessed softwood timber.'' The Softwood Lumber industry, like paper and steel, has faced unfair trade from countries that subsidize their products and dump them on the U.S. market. For that reason, combined with the fact that this legislation is intended to benefit manufacturers in general and not only exporters, it is essential that this legislation extend this tax relief to the timber industry. Similarly, I urged Chairman Grassley to include a provision in this legislation that would classify gains resulting from the sale or exchange of timber as capital rather than ordinary. The crux of this provision is to change the way in which capital gains are calculated for timber by taking the amount of gain and subtracting three percent for each year the timber was held. This change is necessary because although individuals pay a maximum capital gains rate of 15 percent, corporations must still pay a 35 percent rate. As such, this change will reduce the rate of tax for corporations that sell timber, therefore making the U.S. forest products industry more competitive internationally and preserving domestic jobs. In addition to these provisions that already are included in the bill, I am working with Chairman Grassley on an amendment that I have filed that will not only spur economic growth but that will also go a long way in bolstering our national security. Currently, navy shipbuilders are treated unfairly by the tax code because they are required to pay tax based on an expected percentage of their profits. This treatment is problematic because oftentimes, they do not receive payment for several years, meaning the income tax has an overly burdensome effect on their cash flow and their overall production. My amendment would change this treatment by placing navy shipbuilders on equal treatment with commercial shipbuilders in allowing them to pay 40 percent of their estimated income tax during the contract and the remaining 60 percent upon completion of the contract so long as the contract does not exceed 8 years. Importantly, this amendment does not in any way affect the amount of tax that navy shipbuilders will pay; rather, it simply affords a more equitable payment schedule to allow these taxpayers to satisfy more of their tax obligation at a time in which they have cash in hand. I hope that in working with the chairman, we will find a way to address this unfair disparity that is harming our Nation's naval shipbuilders. Accordingly, I believe that the bill before us strikes the proper balance of providing needed tax relief to the taxpayers in our economy who need it most. It has taken a great deal of work to get us where we are today, yet I firmly believe that providing targeted, affordable tax relief to the manufacturing sector of our economy is certainly the right path to choose in repealing the FSC/ETI rules. The key here is that this bill simply reallocates the revenue that repealing the FSC/ETI rules will raise and distributes it directly to the primary beneficiaries of those rules--our country's manufacturers, which is indeed appropriate as the manufacturing base is in dire need of help. While the legislation also simplifies the international tax code and contains other miscellaneous tax cuts designed to create jobs, it does so without increasing the federal budget deficit because it contains tax offsets that will thwart taxpayers' participation in illegal tax shelters and abusive leasing transactions. Consequently, unlike previous tax bills, this legislation is revenue neutral. Therefore, not only is this bill affordable, but it is much needed in order to bolster our manufacturing base and enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. based businesses. Thank you, Mr. President. medical liability reform

Mr. SNOWE

Mr. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support passage of H.R. 4062, a bill that provides needed improvements to the Small Business Administration's largest business loan program, the ``Section 7(a)'' program, at no additional cost to the Government. The SBA's 7(a) loan program has proven that a small amount of government backing can greatly enhance private-sector financing for small businesses, and that the economic benefits reverberate throughout the economy at large. Small businesses create almost 75 percent of the net new jobs in the economy. The 7(a) program harnesses this power and has helped small businesses to create or retain nearly 2 million more jobs in the last five years. The program is so popular among small businesses that demand for program funds in the first few months of fiscal year 2004 suggests that requests for the entire year would far out-pace its available budget. As a result, in January 2004, the SBA shut the program down, and then re-opened it with a loan cap of $750,000--only 37.5 percent of the $2 million maximum previously available. Faced with these restrictions, small businesses have urged Congress and the administration to improve funding opportunities for the rest of 2004. Together with my fellow Senators, colleagues in the House, and a large coalition of small businesses and lenders, we have worked for several months to construct a way to improve the program by allowing lenders to help alleviate the funding shortfall. This plan would benefit small businesses and lenders by allowing loans larger than $750,000, and by allowing ``piggyback'' loans, or by allowing financing packages with several portions. And again, we could do this without increasing Government expenditures. The bill would achieve these goals in three ways. First, lenders would return to the SBA a 0.25 percent, or one-quarter of one percent, fee on new loans under $150,000. Lenders are currently permitted to retain this amount from a borrower fee, of 1 percent, that lenders already collect and pass on to the SBA. For loans larger than $150,000, lenders already must pass the entire borrower fee on to the SBA; this change would make the treatment the same for all loan sizes. This proposal was first made by the SBA, as part of a larger plan the SBA submitted to Congress this year. Second, a lender fee on new loans would be increased from 0.25 percent, one-quarter of one percent, to 0.36 percent. This fee cannot be passed on to small businesses. Third, lenders would be permitted to provide small businesses with ``piggyback'' financing packages that include a 7(a) loan portion and a non-7(a), strictly commercial portion, if the lenders paid the normal fees on the 7(a) loan portion and a 0.70 percent fee on the non-7(a) portion. Prior to January 2004, the SBA permitted this type of financing, but without receiving any fee income for the non-7(a) portion, and without an upper limit on the total financing. H.R. 4062 prohibits the non-7(a) portion of the financing from being larger than the 7(a) loan. The bill also extends to June 4, 2004, the authorization for several SBA programs that would otherwise expire on April 2, 2004, including the Preferred Surety Bond Program, the Small Disadvantaged Business Program, and the SBA's co-sponsorship authority. Finally, the bill extends to September 30, 2004, the authorization for the SBA's Certified Development Company program, also known as the 504 Loan Program. H.R. 4062 is very similar to legislation which I introduced in the Senate on March 10, S. 2193, the ``Small Business Loan Revitalization Act of 2004,'' which I was joined in sponsoring by 18 fellow Senators. That legislation was the result of months of hard work and negotiations with fellow Senators, colleagues in the House, small businesses, lenders, and the administration. I regret that S. 2193's provisions, such as its lower fees for lenders, and the increased debenture sizes for the 504 Loan Program which I recently added by amendment, are not being enacted today, but I am pleased that, according to the Small Business Administration's projections, H.R. 4062 at least achieves the goal of allowing the 7(a) program to operate without restriction through the remainder of this fiscal year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank, again, Senator Dodd for his being a champion over the years on behalf of children and families, and for making it possible that we are in the position of offering this amendment. I also thank the cosponsors and Chairman Grassley for honoring his promise that we have a priority position in offering this amendment. Ultimately, this amendment will determine whether families on welfare and their children will be able to achieve self-sufficiency, which was the goal of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. That was an unprecedented success. This amendment will help build upon that success and help families to achieve the economic independence they and their families deserve. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment and I yield back the remainder of our time.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments regarding this amendment before the final vote. First, I thank Chairman Grassley for his extraordinary leadership and his commitment to ensuring that this legislation gets completed this year, as should be done given all the temporary extensions, but also for his support of the pending amendment to increase childcare support by more than $6 billion. I also thank Senator Dodd, who has provided exemplary advocacy and leadership on behalf of families and children. I appreciate his reaching across the political aisle to forge and craft this bipartisan amendment, along with Senator Carper, who approached me some time ago as well, because of his leadership previously as Governor and now in the Senate on the importance and value of providing the necessary child support in order to make sure we improve the well-being and quality of life for families and children as we transition off this entire welfare system. And I thank other cosponsors such as Senator Bingaman and all of the Senators who have chosen to cosponsor this amendment across the political aisle. I truly appreciate it. It will give breadth and depth to the reauthorization of this welfare reauthorization. This amendment is a recognition of reality. If we want the nearly 5 million people who currently are on the caseload to transition and remain off welfare, we clearly have to provide them affordable, quality childcare assistance. In fact, one of the major pillars in the 1996 landmark legislation was to ensure that we create the necessary support systems so that full-time employment would become accessible. We created the childcare development block grant for families who are on welfare, those transitioning off welfare, low-income families who are not on welfare for whom this assistance could make all the difference. Yet today only one in seven children--only 15 percent--in America who are eligible for Federal support are actually receiving it. More significantly, in 2003, every State in America has reduced their childcare support because of the tremendous financial constraints they are confronting. Not only that, there are 16 States that are reducing the eligibility levels. Therefore, fewer children will be eligible for childcare assistance. There can be no question about the impact of the value of childcare in America. According to a 2002 study, 82 percent of former welfare recipients who receive childcare assistance are more likely than those who do not to have employment for 2 years after being off welfare. That is critically important because it underscores the value of providing this type of support. Currently there are 2 million children receiving a childcare subsidy, which is only a fraction of those children who are eligible. CBO estimates that it will require $4.5 billion to ensure all 2 million children receive the current level of support over the next 5 years. Yet the underlying bill only includes $1 billion that will cover approximately the increased cost to childcare as a result of the expanded work requirements. So if we do nothing more than the underlying bill, there is the potential of 400,000 children who will lose childcare support if we do not pass this amendment today. Now, some people say, you know, we are doing enough. Well, you ask the 605,000 children in America who are on waiting lists. There are not waiting lists in every State. Some States don't keep waiting lists, and the reason is because they know they cannot fulfill the burgeoning demand for childcare and will create expectations they cannot fulfill. This amendment becomes critically important to the well-being of families and children. It is a recognition of reality. The reality is, if we want families to leave welfare, stay off welfare, then let's give them the support they need by passing this amendment. The reality is that children need the quality daycare while their parents are working to improve themselves and their families. We don't want to create untenable situations that require families to make untenable choices. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time and ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Dayton, DeWine, Corzine, and Harkin.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment that I know has already been offered to the Senate on the pending legislation, the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act, known as the PRIDE Act. I am proud to have authored this amendment along with my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd. Without question, Senator Dodd has been a fearless and unyielding champion in increasing both the quality of and funding for child care in America. He has been a tremendous friend to families and children. I appreciate his dedication and advocacy to these causes. It is regrettable that Senator Dodd could not be here today in person to offer this amendment. As our colleagues know too well, disasters do occur from time to time in our States, and they understandably take precedent. He is in Connecticut today addressing issues related to a major highway accident that closed Interstate 95 last Thursday. This accident had an enormous impact on the people of Connecticut but also other States that rely on the interstate for travel or commerce. It is a loss of billions of dollars. Senator Dodd is working with State and Federal officials to restore travel in this vital transportation artery, and today he is where he should be--working on behalf of the people in his State. I look forward to hearing from him tomorrow on this amendment. I also want to recognize and thank Senators Hatch, Alexander, and Carper, who approached me sometime ago on this vital issue regarding child care in the welfare reauthorization and a strong desire to work together to ensure that this issue would be addressed and be given priority consideration in the Senate. I appreciate their efforts as well as the commitment and dedication of other cosponsors: Senators Bingaman, Rockefeller, Collins, Landrieu, Murray, Jeffords, Boxer, Chafee, Lincoln, Clinton, and Mikulski. I appreciate the fact that they have made it a broad bipartisan amendment. Before I explain the amendment before us and why it is such a critical component of this debate, I, too, want to recognize the work of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has been tireless in his perseverance, patience, and commitment to ensuring that the reauthorization of this legislation would be completed in this Congress. The fact that we have been able to report this legislation out of the Finance Committee is in no small part due to his efforts to make sure it became a reality. I thank the majority leader, as well, for his commitment to this issue so that we were able to bring up this bill, finally, for consideration. Also, I want to recognize the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for their work, along with the majority leader and Chairman Grassley, who scheduled this debate so that, hopefully, we can complete the work on this reauthorization. It goes without saying that this day is long overdue regarding our actions for this reauthorization. We have had six extensions in 18 months after the original expiration of this law. As we well recall, in 2002, the Finance Committee did pass this legislation, but, regrettably, it was not brought up on the floor for Senate consideration. So we have had to repeatedly extend this legislation, and the States and the caseloads were left without any kind of specific blueprint for action in the future. Today, hopefully, we begin the last leg of this journey toward giving the States their plan of action for the next 5 years with respect to welfare reform and build upon the successes of the past, as well as addressing some of the remaining issues that certainly have manifest itself in the last 5 years with respect to what my amendment will be addressing. The bill before us today is predicated on the administration's proposal which not only strengthens work requirements, but also allows States to concentrate on removing barriers to employment, giving TANF recipients up to 6 months during which time they can focus, without interruption, on becoming more employable, to remove those barriers that prevent them from being able to seek employment. So that means they can have the opportunities for adult literacy, substance abuse treatment, or taking advantage of other educational opportunities, such as vocational education or technical training. Moreover, the bill rightly recognizes that some families have longer term barriers that they must also face and overcome. For example, this legislation includes provisions which ensure that under certain circumstances, caretakers for disabled dependents meet the requirements for obtaining support as well. I thank Senator Grassley for working with me to include these provisions. Another example of how this bill will improve the employability and likelihood of successful transition from welfare to work, the bill before us today includes provisions based on a widely praised program that happens to be located in my State of Maine, known as the Parents as Scholars Program. We should be able to agree that increased education is another critical factor in whether a person will transition off welfare, be able to not only maintain a job, but to secure one that provides a decent income. That is why I have championed these provisions repeatedly which will allow a number of qualified, motivated welfare parents to take part in longer duration and postsecondary education while on the caseload. Parents as Scholars has been extraordinarily successful in my State, with graduates averaging a 50-percent increase in salaries, and with 90 percent of working graduates leaving welfare behind permanently. It is because of this record of success that I am very pleased that during the Finance Committee markup, my amendment giving all TANF parents across the Nation the benefit of accessing this education program was accepted. This program, as I said, has been not only successful, but I think it also ultimately will be widely available across the country because access to education should not be a question of geography. This legislation also reflects our desire to afford the States flexibility by providing partial credit toward a State's work participation rate when there is partial compliance with hourly requirements by recipients. I believe this is a commonsense addition to current law that will fuel this program's success for years to come, while laying the groundwork for States to help clients become employed and stay employed, which, after all, was the original goal of the landmark 1996 reform act. I thank Senator Lincoln for offering this provision because I do think it goes a long way to addressing some of the issues that were raised in the last welfare reform act. I am very pleased this legislation before us also builds upon the tripartisan legislation on which many of us on the Finance Committee worked in 2002. Senator Hatch, Senator Breaux, Senator Jeffords, Senator Lincoln, Senator Rockefeller, and I included provisions that now have also been incorporated in this legislation concerning child support distribution, the employment credit, education and training requirements, and much of our universal engagement provisions and adjustments to the contingency fund. At the same time, this bill also reflects a considerable good-faith effort to close some of the political and policy gaps that existed within the committee at the time of the markup. I know many of my Republican colleagues would have preferred additional workups similar to what the President had proposed--40 hours instead of the 34--but we were willing to compromise in order to advance this benchmark legislation. It was in the spirit of that compromise that I supported the legislation in the Finance Committee, recognizing that, yes, I would have preferred a significantly greater funding for child care, but at the same time I know there has been some disagreement on this side of the aisle as to how much we can even afford or should do with respect to child care funding in the welfare reauthorization. I refrained from offering that amendment in the committee so that we could have the opportunity to bridge these gaps on the floor of the Senate and to move this legislation forward. The amendment I am offering today will provide $6 billion in new mandatory child care funding which I think represents an attempt to guarantee that there will be no structural weaknesses in the PRIDE Act that may undermine its ultimate effectiveness or success. I am very pleased that Chairman Grassley gave me the opportunity to have priority recognition to offer this amendment today that was part of the agreement we reached in the Finance Committee because I hope it will set a bipartisan tone for the debate to come. This reauthorization is critical to almost 5 million people who are on welfare today. I am convinced it is our duty and our obligation to do all that we can to clear the political barriers, the policy barriers, overcome all the obstacles that we ultimately engage in on the floor of the Senate, but, in the final analysis, we ought to be in a position to vote on the welfare reauthorization and extend this law. This $6 billion increase in new mandatory child care certainly should move us in that direction. I am adding this today because I think this amount is commensurate with the real and current needs. To understand how these needs developed and why this amount of funding is essential is important to understand because as we set out to reauthorize the 1996 law, we have to reexamine some of the decisions and some of the choices that were made at the time that now has led us to this point that I think compels us to offer more money in terms of child care. One of the decisions that Congress made back in 1996 was to ensure that we would have the necessary support systems to allow welfare recipients, as they transition into the workplace and access full-time employment, to have all of the support that is going to be absolutely vital to make that employment a success, as well as accessible. These types of assistance to working parents who generally are employed at minimum-wage jobs allow them to make ends meet and to make a permanent transition from welfare to work. One of the most critical types of work support we can offer these families is quality child care. Without good child care, a parent is left with only two choices: to leave a child in an unsafe and often unsupervised situation, or not to work, both of which are lose-lose situations. If the aim of welfare reform is to move people off the welfare rolls and on to the payrolls, providing support in the form of quality affordable child care is a prerequisite to realizing that goal. Of course, as with anything else, child care comes with a price. In some States, it can cost as much as a year's tuition in a public college. Factor in additional costs of infant care or odd-hour care, such as nights or weekends or care for children with special needs, and the challenge increases significantly. So for a parent working toward financial independence, typically earning minimum wage, it is not hard to see how child care can be the budget buster that compels a family to retreat back into welfare. This battle was also fought by families who are employed in full- time, lower wage jobs, families not receiving cash welfare assistance, but who only earn $15,000 to $20,000 per year. Almost 2 years ago, a constituent of mine came to Washington to testify before Senator Dodd's Subcommittee on Children and Families. Sheila Merkinson, a resident of Maine, testified her childcare costs absorbed almost 48 percent of her weekly income. Even though she is eligible for aid, she receives no childcare assistance because the need exceeds the income eligibility requirements in our State. At that time, Sheila stated she had been on the waiting list for childcare subsidies 6 months, four of them while she was working, and sleeping on a couch during that entire time period because she could not afford to pay the rent on her $18,000 yearly income. I also remember reading several years ago about a mother in Maine whose only choice for a steady job was working the night shift at the local mill. Because she lived in a rural area with no family nearby, she was forced to choose between losing her job or tucking her elementary schoolage children into bed at night, locking the doors behind her, and going to work. Affordable childcare was not a reality for her and so she did what she deemed was best, to go to work and earn the money she required to support her children. In the end, the courts made a third choice for this mother. They took her children away from her. We have no rhyme or reason to put people who care about their own children in untenable situations where they are compelled to make these unpalatable choices. This amendment will help ensure we can prevent these types of circumstances so many families face in the real world today. These are but two of the life stories that bring me to the point of offering this amendment and providing the mandatory childcare funds of more than $6 billion for the next 5 years. These are families who really are the essence of what this debate is all about. Back in 1996, as this chart would illustrate, Congress recognized when we created the TANF program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formed the childcare and development block grant, because we had a myriad of programs that provided various funding streams for childcare, we had a commitment to serve the families on welfare. That is why we consolidated more than four programs into the childcare and development block grant, so that we had a commitment to serve not only those who are on welfare, those who are transitioning off welfare, those who were not on welfare but were at the risk of falling onto welfare caseloads. Finally we decided we should coordinate and consolidate these programs to create this block grant with the intent of serving those low-income families that may be employed but still require some kind of assistance because of the high cost of childcare. We have this coordinated development block grant on childcare that is aimed at serving the needs of each of these populations. While the Federal law sets the ceiling, the States are able to determine their own eligibility requirements. Yet according to most estimates, only one in seven eligible children receives this kind of assistance. It is not surprising when one considers that in 2003 alone, nearly every State reduced childcare spending and 16 States reduced eligibility levels so fewer children would qualify. Even when our eligibility guidelines are high, most States are unable to attain them. In fact, according to the 2004-2005 State plans in at least five States, a family is not eligible for the childcare development block grant if the family earns more than $20,000 per year. So clearly there remains a pressing need. While the focus of this debate is the TANF population, as well it should be, it cannot be to the exclusion of all of those lower income families who are not on welfare. I am convinced that access to this critical work support makes all the difference in a successful transition from welfare to work, and to help ensure these families do not retreat back into welfare, and at the same time that we allow them to achieve self-sufficiency. That is the goal of any welfare reform act and that is what it should be. According to a 2002 study, single mothers with young children who receive childcare assistance are 40 percent more likely to be employed after 2 years than mothers who did not receive such assistance. The study goes on to say former welfare recipients who receive childcare are 82 percent more likely to be employed after 2 years than those who do not receive such support. These findings make sense, as far too often, for many single parents, unaffordable, unavailable, or unreliable childcare is the chief barrier to steady employment. Over the past few years, States have been experiencing unprecedented fiscal crises which are resulting in cutbacks to crucial services for low-income families and children. Severely limited resources are driving States to make some difficult tradeoffs, when it comes to policies, among equally deserving groups of eligible families. It is not unreasonable for a State to conclude that TANF families subject to work requirements in a maximum 5-year time limit or families transitioning off TANF should get priority over families who have not received welfare. However, as a result of these decisions many vulnerable low-income working families who require childcare assistance will not be able to support their families and remain off welfare. That is a reality. The worst-case scenario would be one in which limits on childcare subsidies for lower income working families begin to act as a disincentive. Families transitioning off welfare or low-income families struggling to stay off welfare rolls could easily deduce the effort simply was not worth it. In May of 2003, GAO issued a report that suggests this possibility may exist. It states that a change in priority status can result in families losing benefits. For example, in two States, families who leave TANF lose all of their benefits. In seven States, when a family comes to the end of a State's transition period, this can result in their losing assistance altogether. Considering that childcare for a single child can easily cost between $4,000 and $10,000 yearly, it is not difficult to understand why a family affected in this way might have no other choice but to remain on welfare. Providing a firm foundation and the tools necessary to make a successful transition to independence was the promise we made and one we must honor. So the amendment we are offering to this pending legislation would fulfill our commitment to the States by increasing the amount of mandatory childcare funding that is authorized under this legislation. We can do that today by passing this bipartisan amendment. I know some would say there is an abundance of funding and that the estimates of unmet needs are baseless. My response to those critics is this: Ask the more than 605,000 eligible children on waiting lists in 24 States and the District of Columbia if there is sufficient funding. Many have argued since there are waiting lists in only less than half the States, then the rest of the States do not have unmet needs. Well, this is patently untrue. The truth of the matter is not every State keeps a waiting list. Again, they feel it is a fruitless endeavor, because they are elevating expectations knowing that those expectations simply cannot be fulfilled because they do not have the funding for childcare. Many States cap the number of names allowed to appear on the waiting list, again because they know they will not be able to fulfill their requirements. They do not want to create the kind of hope among people that they will get the support ultimately when they know it simply will not be possible. Consider that if one is a mother residing in California and she went to the State's welfare office and they told her get in line, she is No. 280,001. How likely is it she will bother to put her name on the waiting list? If a counselor in New York City told a mother her child would be No. 46,001, would she take the time to sign up? And even if she did, would she ultimately get the childcare support she needed? Not likely. Another question is: How many childcare slots would be generated by the $6 billion included in our amendment? We cannot say for certain, but if we do not provide this funding there will be hundreds of thousands of children without any support under this welfare reauthorization. We currently have 2 million children receiving child care subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would cost $4.5 billion to ensure that all 2 million children currently--I emphasize currently--receiving subsidies will be able to continue receiving that level of support over the next 5 years, during the course of this reauthorization. The underlying legislation that is before the Senate includes $1 billion in mandatory childcare funding which, according to CBO, may well cover the estimated cost for the new work requirements and the State participation rates of somewhere between $1 billion to $1.5 billion of increased child care as they relate to these expanded requirements under this legislation. Just to maintain exactly what is in current law for the 2 million children costs $4.5 billion, and the increase, the new increase under this legislation, would require another $1 billion to $1.5 billion. What we are saying is, just given where we are today, we could have 400,000 children removed from the caseload without this kind of money-- 400,000 if we do not support the pending amendment. It is imperative that we pass this amendment to ensure the States will be in a position to provide the level of support they are currently providing to these families--just to maintain the status quo. The legislation of the chairman provides a strong start by adding the $1 billion to pay for these increased work requirements, but I believe, Senator Dodd believes, and all the cosponsors of this amendment believe we should and must do more. The PRIDE Act seeks to build upon our very successful effort in 1996. We transformed the welfare system as we know it. It is landmark legislation that was an unprecedented success. We were able to convert an old entitlement system into a temporary program that helps our most fragile population take those critical first steps toward economic self-sufficiency. I believe our amendment strengthens this effort by ensuring that mothers struggling to move themselves off the welfare rolls will have the kind of assistance they need in order to succeed. The good news is we will be able to do this with the kind of support that is essential. We have an offset in this amendment that includes the Customs user fees on merchandise that is processed through Customs. It is obviously important so we don't have a budget point of order. Some have said we have used this in the past and most specifically it is on the legislation that is also being currently considered by the Senate on the Foreign Sales Corporation Act for international tax relief for manufacturers. However, that legislation includes up to $130 billion in revenue offsets. We are using $6 billion of the $17 billion that has been incorporated in that legislation regarding Customs fees. I believe there will be sufficient offsets to address both that legislation and this one as well. The amendment we are offering today builds on the work that has been incorporated in the underlying legislation that was reported out of the Finance Committee. Like many of my colleagues on that committee, Chairman Grassley, Senator Dodd, and all of those who support this effort here today, we are trying to build upon the major steps that were taken in the 1996 Act, which I think has made great strides toward helping lower-income families achieving the American dream and ultimately achieving self- determination and self-sufficiency. There is an important difference between giving someone a handout and offering them a hand up. I believe this amendment to the PRIDE Act builds upon that distinction. That is why I am so pleased to have the kind of bipartisan support that has been given to this amendment. I do believe it is a strong step in the right direction. Granted, it is not going to address all the demands and needs across America, but certainly it will go a long way toward understanding and recognizing the reality that if we don't do this, we leave families and children in an untenable situation. I happen to believe this amendment will strengthen our ability to pass this welfare reauthorization, that the States need to give guidance and direction for the future. We cannot allow States to live in statutory limbo and we can't allow families to live in limbo as well. I hope this amendment will receive strong support here in the Senate, reflecting the strong bipartisan cosponsorship of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the approval of H.R. 3915, a bill adopted by the House yesterday to provide a short- term extension of the Small Business Administration, SBA, and all of its programs. In particular, it ensures the continuation of the SBA's 504 loan program, a vital program for small businesses. The bill extends the authorization for the 504 loan program through May 21, 2004, and extends the authorization for other SBA programs, such as the Preferred Surety Bond Program, and Small Disadvantaged Business Program, and the SBA's cosponsorship authority, through April 2, 2004. On September 26, 2003, the Senate unanimously approved the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, S. 1375, which I introduced as the chair of the Committee on Small Business. That bill provides for the 3-year reauthorization of the SBA and its small business programs, including the 504 loan program. The reauthorization bill will continue the SBA's role in assisting American small businesses to thrive and grow, through the agency's lending and other programs and services. Most importantly, it will enable the agency to help small businesses continue creating new jobs for our economy. According to the SBA, reauthorizing the agency will result in an estimated 3.3 million jobs created or retained over the next 5 years. While the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act provides for the continuation of these programs, the other body continues to be delayed in its consideration of legislation to reauthorize the agency. The SBA's programs that rely on appropriations have continued since the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2004 was enacted. However, several of the SBA's programs and activities, such as the 504 loan program, do not rely on appropriations. As a result, they are in jeopardy of shutting down without the bill before us today, and that's a result America's small businesses simply cannot afford. I am confident that we can enact legislation to reauthorize the SBA once the other body has completed work on its version of the bill. In the interim, we must ensure that the SBA can continue to offer the entire range of its programs to our Nation's small businesses, which are the driving force behind our current economic recovery. The 504 loan program, one of the agency's flagship lending programs, allows small businesses to obtain long-term, fixed-rate financing to purchase land, buildings, or equipment. In the past 4 fiscal years, the SBA has provided guarantees for more than 20,000 loans through the 504 loan program, for a total of approximately $8.6 billion, and these loans have allowed small businesses to create or retain more than 445,000 jobs. The 504 program relies on fees charged to the program participants, rather than on Federal appropriations charged to the taxpayers, to fund their operation. Because the program relies on Federal funds, the SBA needs legislative authorization to collect the fees that operate the programs and ensure that they function at a zero subsidy rate. I am also extremely concerned about the SBA's section 7(a) business loan program. I strongly believe that we must act to ensure that the 7(a) program remains a source of long-term capital for small businesses, including those small businesses that need large loans. The 7(a) program is currently suffering from a funding shortfall, as demand for loans has exceeded the available appropriations this year, as it has four times in the last 10 years. In that regard, yesterday I introduced the Small Business Loan Revitalization Act, S. 2193. I was pleased to be joined in sponsoring that act by my colleagues, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Coleman. With the improvements contained in that act, I am confident that we can soon help the 7(a) program to once again provide the financing that small businesses so desperately need. We must act today to ensure that the SBA and its programs continue. The bill before us achieves that goal by extending the authorization for the 504 program through May 21, 2004, and for the agency and its other programs through April 2, 2004. That will provide time for the other body to pass its legislation, for us to reconcile the differences, and for the President to sign a long-term reauthorization bill for the SBA. This legislation is absolutely necessary for America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thereby ensure that the SBA, and in particular the 504 loan program, will continue to serve small businesses and enable small businesses to obtain the financing they need, as they contribute so greatly to the revitalization of our national economy. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to revitalize a loan program crucial to the growth of small businesses in this country, and therefore crucial to our country's economy. This bill, the ``Smart Business Loan Revitalization Act of 2004,'' provides improvements to the Small Business Administration's largest business loan program, the ``Section 7(a)'' program. This program proves that a small amount of government backing can greatly enhance private-sector financing for small businesses, and that the economic benefits can reverberate throughout the economy at large. More than $46.6 billion in 7(a) loans have been provided to small businesses over the last five Fiscal Years. This financing has helped small businesses to create or retain nearly 2 million more jobs over this five-year period. Today, we are losing thousands of American jobs to outsourcing and off-shore manufacturing. We measure net job increases in the ``few thousands.'' Given these circumstances, it is clearly to our advantage, and to the advantage of the American people, to support improvements to any program that has already demonstrated an ability to create or retain nearly 400,000 American jobs a year. Last year this program provided $11.2 billion in loans to small business owners and employees in towns and communities across America. This year, however, the SBA only requested a program size of $9.3 billion. The fact that the SBA received a larger appropriation than the $9.3 billion it requested is powerful testament to the popularity of this program among small businesses. The SBA received sufficient appropriations, $79 million, coupled with $22 million in carried-over funds, to allow for a $9.55 billion program. Like last year, however, the demand for program funds in the first few months of Fiscal Year 2004 suggested that requests for the entire year would most likely exceed $11 billion. As a result, in January, 2004, the SBA shut the program down, and then reopened it with a diminished loan cap of $750,000--37.5 percent of the $2 million maximum previously available. Faced with these restrictions, small businesses have urged Congress and the Administration to make the program fully operational for the rest of 2004. To this end, I have worked with a coalition of small businesses and lenders to construct a plan to improve the program for the remainder of this Fiscal Year. The plan would allow lenders to help alleviate the funding shortfall. It would benefit small businesses and lenders by allowing loans larger than $750,000, and by allowing loans with multiple participations. The bill would achieve these goals in three ways. First, lenders would return to the SBA a fee of 0.25 percent (or one-quarter of one percent) of new loans under $150,000, a fee that lenders are currently permitted to retain. Lenders may only retain this fee for loans of $150,000 or less--for loans greater than that size, lenders must return the fee to the SBA, as they have been required to do since the inception of the program. This proposal was first made by the SBA, as part of a larger plan the SBA recently submitted to Congress. Second, a lender fee on new loans would be increased from 0.25 percent, one-quarter of one percent, to 0.35 percent. Finally, lenders would be permitted to provide small businesses with financing packages that include a 7(a) loan portion and a non-7(a), a strictly commercial portion, if the lenders paid the normal fees on the 7(a) loan portion and a 0.50 percent fee on the non-7(a) portion. Prior to January 2004, the SBA permitted this type of financing, but without receiving any fee income for the non-7(a) portion, and without an upper limit on the total financing, which I have set at $4 million. The ability of small businesses to receive loans larger than $750,000 is a prerequisite to reviving the American economy. These loans provide needed capital for significant purchases and development by small businesses. More 7(a) loans represent longer-term loans than similar products available in the private capital market, and this allows small businesses to repay their 7(a) loans more gradually. I applaud the SBA for its desire to make more small loans to entrepreneurs without large capital needs, but I also urge the SBA to remember those entrepreneurs and small businesses who need more financing to strengthen and grow their enterprise, and to hire more employees. After encouraging entrepreneurs to start new small businesses, we cannot afford to forget their small businesses, or profess an inability to assist them when they need additional financing to grow. The benefits of this program are clear. It has the ability to help entrepreneurs to create jobs, to fulfill their dreams, and to support their families--all of this while building the kinds of energetic businesses our economy so desperately needs. The demands for this program is also clear. Small businesses have submitted more applications than the program could handle so far this year. The willingness of lenders to pay increased fees to meet the demand from small businesses for 7(a) loans is clear evidence the program works and remains attractive to lenders. The question we must answer now is whether we are willing to respond to small businesses and lenders and implement a solution which they have asked for, and which promises dividends for all involved, or whether we will ignore their requests, and miss an opportunity to transform a loan program that sustains almost 400,000 jobs a year into an initiative capable of creating two, three, four or even five times that amount. I don't want to miss that opportunity, my constituents in Maine can't afford to miss that opportunity, and I don't believe that your constituents can either. Almost every company listed today on the American Stock Exchange began as a small business. In the short term, this bill may save American jobs. But in the long term, it may save the American economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to revitalize a loan program crucial to the growth of small businesses in this country, and therefore crucial to our country's economy. This bill, the ``Smart Business Loan Revitalization Act of 2004,'' provides improvements to the Small Business Administration's largest business loan program, the ``Section 7(a)'' program. This program proves that a small amount of government backing can greatly enhance private-sector financing for small businesses, and that the economic benefits can reverberate throughout the economy at large. More than $46.6 billion in 7(a) loans have been provided to small businesses over the last five Fiscal Years. This financing has helped small businesses to create or retain nearly 2 million more jobs over this five-year period. Today, we are losing thousands of American jobs to outsourcing and off-shore manufacturing. We measure net job increases in the ``few thousands.'' Given these circumstances, it is clearly to our advantage, and to the advantage of the American people, to support improvements to any program that has already demonstrated an ability to create or retain nearly 400,000 American jobs a year. Last year this program provided $11.2 billion in loans to small business owners and employees in towns and communities across America. This year, however, the SBA only requested a program size of $9.3 billion. The fact that the SBA received a larger appropriation than the $9.3 billion it requested is powerful testament to the popularity of this program among small businesses. The SBA received sufficient appropriations, $79 million, coupled with $22 million in carried-over funds, to allow for a $9.55 billion program. Like last year, however, the demand for program funds in the first few months of Fiscal Year 2004 suggested that requests for the entire year would most likely exceed $11 billion. As a result, in January, 2004, the SBA shut the program down, and then reopened it with a diminished loan cap of $750,000--37.5 percent of the $2 million maximum previously available. Faced with these restrictions, small businesses have urged Congress and the Administration to make the program fully operational for the rest of 2004. To this end, I have worked with a coalition of small businesses and lenders to construct a plan to improve the program for the remainder of this Fiscal Year. The plan would allow lenders to help alleviate the funding shortfall. It would benefit small businesses and lenders by allowing loans larger than $750,000, and by allowing loans with multiple participations. The bill would achieve these goals in three ways. First, lenders would return to the SBA a fee of 0.25 percent (or one-quarter of one percent) of new loans under $150,000, a fee that lenders are currently permitted to retain. Lenders may only retain this fee for loans of $150,000 or less--for loans greater than that size, lenders must return the fee to the SBA, as they have been required to do since the inception of the program. This proposal was first made by the SBA, as part of a larger plan the SBA recently submitted to Congress. Second, a lender fee on new loans would be increased from 0.25 percent, one-quarter of one percent, to 0.35 percent. Finally, lenders would be permitted to provide small businesses with financing packages that include a 7(a) loan portion and a non-7(a), a strictly commercial portion, if the lenders paid the normal fees on the 7(a) loan portion and a 0.50 percent fee on the non-7(a) portion. Prior to January 2004, the SBA permitted this type of financing, but without receiving any fee income for the non-7(a) portion, and without an upper limit on the total financing, which I have set at $4 million. The ability of small businesses to receive loans larger than $750,000 is a prerequisite to reviving the American economy. These loans provide needed capital for significant purchases and development by small businesses. More 7(a) loans represent longer-term loans than similar products available in the private capital market, and this allows small businesses to repay their 7(a) loans more gradually. I applaud the SBA for its desire to make more small loans to entrepreneurs without large capital needs, but I also urge the SBA to remember those entrepreneurs and small businesses who need more financing to strengthen and grow their enterprise, and to hire more employees. After encouraging entrepreneurs to start new small businesses, we cannot afford to forget their small businesses, or profess an inability to assist them when they need additional financing to grow. The benefits of this program are clear. It has the ability to help entrepreneurs to create jobs, to fulfill their dreams, and to support their families--all of this while building the kinds of energetic businesses our economy so desperately needs. The demands for this program is also clear. Small businesses have submitted more applications than the program could handle so far this year. The willingness of lenders to pay increased fees to meet the demand from small businesses for 7(a) loans is clear evidence the program works and remains attractive to lenders. The question we must answer now is whether we are willing to respond to small businesses and lenders and implement a solution which they have asked for, and which promises dividends for all involved, or whether we will ignore their requests, and miss an opportunity to transform a loan program that sustains almost 400,000 jobs a year into an initiative capable of creating two, three, four or even five times that amount. I don't want to miss that opportunity, my constituents in Maine can't afford to miss that opportunity, and I don't believe that your constituents can either. Almost every company listed today on the American Stock Exchange began as a small business. In the short term, this bill may save American jobs. But in the long term, it may save the American economy. 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 congratulate the Maine Lobstermen's Association on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, Reaching this significant mile stone is a testament to the organization's positive message and the strong guidance of its leadership throughout the last half-century. Lobstermen are symbolic of Maine's unique way of life. Harvesting lobsters is part of the proud heritage of Maine's coasts and the State produces more lobster than any other in the Nation. Each year, over 50 million pounds of lobster are harvested in Maine, adding several hundred million dollars to the State's economy. Lobstering is a traditional occupation which represents the values of Mainers and their deep connection with the abundant natural resources and beautiful coast that surround the State. Maine's lobster fishery, though well recognized today, had very humble beginnings. According to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium, lobsters were once so plentiful that they were considered a plain, dull food and a cheap source of nutrition for those living near the Northeast coast. Lobstering was done by hand until the mid-19th century, when trapping became more popular and allowed for larger numbers of lobsters to be caught. The fishery also experienced growth due to the advent of new canning practices, which enabled Maine lobsters to reach far and wide across the glove. As Maine's lobster fishery has grown, changing technologies and stronger regulations have put new pressures on lobstermen, while also ensuring the continued success and sustainability of lobstering as an occupation. Founded in 1954, the MLA has promoted a spirit of cooperation among lobstermen, and it has fought hard to improve their way of life as Maine's lobster fishery evolves. Through the dedication of its membership and the strong leadership of its directors, the Association has been instrumental in keeping the grandest tradition of Maine's coasts both profitable and sustainable. Along the way, it has grown to a considerable size and now counts over 1,200 lobstermen in its ranks. The Association has such a large membership that it currently bills itself as the biggest commercial fishing industry on the East Coast. As Maine's Senator and as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard, I am particularly dedicated to helping fishing communities maintain the quality of life which they deserve. I am extremely grateful to the Association for its tireless dedication to Maine lobstermen, and I thank each and every one of its members for being actively involved in their communities through their membership. I look forward to many more years of working closely with the MLA. Again, I congratulate the Association on its past successes, and wish it at least another 50 years of growth and achievement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act of 2004,'' which addresses two of the Nation's most pressing education needs: first, the projected demand for roughly 2.4 million new `highly qualified' teachers over the next decade, due to teacher attrition, teacher retirement, and a growing student population, and second, the requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act that all teachers be `highly qualified' by 2006. This is an enormous challenge for the Nation, but one that this legislation would take giant strides toward meeting. Our Nation's colleges and universities have done a wonderful job graduating highly qualified teachers. There is no question about this, but given the coming teacher shortages, it is unlikely that our four- year colleges and universities, alone, will be sufficient to satisfy the rising demand for well-educated teachers. Certainly, and sadly, this will simply not be possible in the near term. Yet throughout the educational community, community colleges have come to be recognized for their potential to play a leading role in filling the looming teacher shortage. Community colleges are already a vital part of our higher education system, particularly in producing teachers. Nearly half of all of the country's undergraduates who enter post-secondary institutions began their studies at community colleges. Of the country's teachers, one in five began their education at a community college. Clearly, community colleges are already a great resource. In addition to their current role, community colleges have access to a vast population of students who could potentially become teachers, if given encouragement, opportunity and training. The Nation's 1200 community colleges enroll more than 6 million students. Let me put that in perspective. That means that 44 percent of the Nation's undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges! It's not difficult to see that community colleges have the unique potential to assist the country in meeting its increased demand for high-quality teachers. Now let me tell you how this legislation would utilize this resource for the benefit of both our children and our future. This bill seeks to build strong teacher training networks by allowing us to tap the extraordinary resources and student pool at all post- secondary levels to increase the number of teachers across the nation. This is accomplished through the establishment of a Department of Education grant program to award funding to applicants who will strengthen their teacher training systems. Four-year institutions can offer the community college population access to their established and recognized curriculum of teacher training courses. Four-year institutions that have already established relationships with schools can offer practical learning to community college students who are seeking a teaching degree, and can receive federal money to help implement these programs. Moreover, by promoting close collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions, this legislation increases the opportunity for community college students to earn a baccalaureate degree in education. This would help the Nation keep pace with the demand for high-quality teachers that is due--in addition to the demographic changes I mentioned earlier--to requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, most notably the mandate that all new teachers have at least a baccalaureate degree. While this legislation aims to prevent a shortage of teachers nationwide, it prioritizes teacher preparation in areas of extreme shortage, typically rural and urban areas. Further, it targets specific academic areas that face even greater shortages, such as mathematics, science, and special education. The Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act also promotes teacher training and outreach to secondary schools to develop innovative approaches to attracting high school students into the teaching profession. Finally, recognizing that teacher shortage is not a regional problem, care will be taken to ensure that grants are distributed in a geographically diverse manner. This legislation addresses a pressing issue. School districts across the nation are struggling to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, and delaying assistance would only compound the problem as shortages of qualified teachers increase. This was not the intent of No Child Left Behind, but idleness on this issue will surely leave a devastating shortage of quality educators for our children. It is time to act, and this legislation offers us a tremendous opportunity to send a clear and overdue signal to states that we intend to be true to this landmark legislation's title. I look forward to working on this issue and urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act of 2004,'' which addresses two of the Nation's most pressing education needs: first, the projected demand for roughly 2.4 million new `highly qualified' teachers over the next decade, due to teacher attrition, teacher retirement, and a growing student population, and second, the requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act that all teachers be `highly qualified' by 2006. This is an enormous challenge for the Nation, but one that this legislation would take giant strides toward meeting. Our Nation's colleges and universities have done a wonderful job graduating highly qualified teachers. There is no question about this, but given the coming teacher shortages, it is unlikely that our four- year colleges and universities, alone, will be sufficient to satisfy the rising demand for well-educated teachers. Certainly, and sadly, this will simply not be possible in the near term. Yet throughout the educational community, community colleges have come to be recognized for their potential to play a leading role in filling the looming teacher shortage. Community colleges are already a vital part of our higher education system, particularly in producing teachers. Nearly half of all of the country's undergraduates who enter post-secondary institutions began their studies at community colleges. Of the country's teachers, one in five began their education at a community college. Clearly, community colleges are already a great resource. In addition to their current role, community colleges have access to a vast population of students who could potentially become teachers, if given encouragement, opportunity and training. The Nation's 1200 community colleges enroll more than 6 million students. Let me put that in perspective. That means that 44 percent of the Nation's undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges! It's not difficult to see that community colleges have the unique potential to assist the country in meeting its increased demand for high-quality teachers. Now let me tell you how this legislation would utilize this resource for the benefit of both our children and our future. This bill seeks to build strong teacher training networks by allowing us to tap the extraordinary resources and student pool at all post- secondary levels to increase the number of teachers across the nation. This is accomplished through the establishment of a Department of Education grant program to award funding to applicants who will strengthen their teacher training systems. Four-year institutions can offer the community college population access to their established and recognized curriculum of teacher training courses. Four-year institutions that have already established relationships with schools can offer practical learning to community college students who are seeking a teaching degree, and can receive federal money to help implement these programs. Moreover, by promoting close collaboration between community colleges and four-year institutions, this legislation increases the opportunity for community college students to earn a baccalaureate degree in education. This would help the Nation keep pace with the demand for high-quality teachers that is due--in addition to the demographic changes I mentioned earlier--to requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, most notably the mandate that all new teachers have at least a baccalaureate degree. While this legislation aims to prevent a shortage of teachers nationwide, it prioritizes teacher preparation in areas of extreme shortage, typically rural and urban areas. Further, it targets specific academic areas that face even greater shortages, such as mathematics, science, and special education. The Community College Teacher Preparation Enhancement Act also promotes teacher training and outreach to secondary schools to develop innovative approaches to attracting high school students into the teaching profession. Finally, recognizing that teacher shortage is not a regional problem, care will be taken to ensure that grants are distributed in a geographically diverse manner. This legislation addresses a pressing issue. School districts across the nation are struggling to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, and delaying assistance would only compound the problem as shortages of qualified teachers increase. This was not the intent of No Child Left Behind, but idleness on this issue will surely leave a devastating shortage of quality educators for our children. It is time to act, and this legislation offers us a tremendous opportunity to send a clear and overdue signal to states that we intend to be true to this landmark legislation's title. I look forward to working on this issue and urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and update fisheries policy to better satisfy the ever-changing needs of our Nation's fish stocks and fishing communities. In 1976, the year in which the Magnuson-Stevens Act was written, our commercial fisheries were in grave danger of being exploited beyond their ability to recover. Passage of the Act has provided a more balanced approach in fulfilling our economic needs by also promoting responsible conservation and stewardship of our resources. Even as it sought to provide better management for the Nation's resources as a whole, this law recognized that our fisheries have vastly different regional problems. The result was the creation of a regional management council in each of the country's eight major marine fisheries. These councils, with substantial input from the local community, are responsible for creating the management plans by which their fish stocks are regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Services. This structure has been vital in allowing the active stakeholders in each region to provide meaningful input to the management process. Since the enactment of this legislation, domestic offshore catches have increased so dramatically that our fisheries now add billions of dollars to the Nation's economy every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Because of this increase in fishing harvests and the pressure to fish more than could be sustained, in 1996 Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act to amend and enhance the Magnuson- Stevens Act. The new amendments included new guidelines for conservation of both targeted fisheries and bycatch, or incidentally- caught fish and other marine life. The Act required that overfished stocks be rebuilt within a 10 year timeframe. In addition, the provisions added a requirement for the protection of all essential fish habitat for each fishery. The overarching goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure prosperity for all United States fisheries by ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks. This goal, and the means for achieving it, are as important today as they were in 1996. I supported the Act, because I saw in it great potential for sustaining fishing communities and the stocks upon which they depend. In the nearly 8 years since we last renewed and reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, we have witnessed both prosperity and degradation in different fisheries affected by this law. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Annual Report in 2003, certain fisheries have thrived; for example, sea scallops on Georges Bank have increased 20-fold from 1994 to 2002, silver hake in the Northeast was declared fully rebuilt in 2002, and recovery of dozens of other stocks is well underway. The National Marine Fisheries Services' most recent survey of young Georges Bank haddock indicates a population boom with the potential to be the largest ever recorded, putting that fishery well on the road to its recovery goal. Conversely, other fisheries have not fared as well, as demonstrated by the fact that overfishing commenced in 13 U.S. fisheries between 1997 and 2002. As Chair of the Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, I have sought answers as to why the Magnuson- Stevens Act has apparently worked well for some fisheries, but not others. Representing a state with scores of fishing communities and thousands of fisheries workers, I understand the great importance of making sure that our federal fisheries laws are working for all of our Nation's fisheries. In seeking these answers, during the 106th Congress I traveled across the country and held a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In Washington, D.C. Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts, I heard official testimony from over 70 witnesses. Our subcommittee received hundreds of comments, views, and recommendations from federal and state officials, regional council chairmen and members, other fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the conservation community, and many others interested in fisheries management. What the subcommittee learned during these hearing--and which continues to be reinforced by more recent fisheries events, comments, and recommendations--is that most of the shortcomings in our federal fisheries policy are products of how the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been interpreted and applied to real-life fisheries problems. While the underpinnings of the Act are sound, it has become clear that implementation of the Act has often been inconsistent with Congressional intent. That is the primary challenge before us today: to clarify how the goals of conservation and management can be achieved for our Nation's fisheries, and ensure effective implementation of the Act. What we need is a federal fisheries policy that can be interpreted and applied in ways that recognize and respond to the unique conditions facing each individual fishery. Of the hundreds of fisheries occurring around our Nation's coastline, no two are exactly alike. The conservation measures that work in one fishery cannot always be transferred to another. The Magnuson-Stevens act must express enough flexibility to accommodate these variations, so that managers can craft unique, innovative solutions based on the conditions and needs of the fish stocks and fishing communities in question. I first attempted to address these issues when I introduced S. 2832, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2000, as well as bills authorizing national standards for fishing quota systems. During the last several years, the need for these amendments--as well as new amendments to meet evolving fisheries needs--has only intensified. It is this fact that underlies the bill I introduce today, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill contains several specific measures for enhancing management flexibility. First and foremost, this bill would repeal the 10-year timeline for rebuilding fish stocks and the unnecessarily-rigid measures that stem from it. This provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act is not based on fish population dynamics, but instead imposes a stringent and arbitrary time-frame inappropriate for the diverse needs of each individual fishery. This bill would replace it with a system that allows a more adaptive approach for determining harvest rates. I am proposing that fishing mortality rates simply be limited to the maximum sustainable yield that a stock can produce in any given year. This fishing rate would not permit overfishing; it would allow stocks to rebuild over time to a level that achieves ecosystem balance. Another new proposal in this bill would improve managers' ability to fairly distribute access to distant-water fish stocks. As is now occurring in the New England groundfishery, fishermen from different states are unevenly impacted by management measures that treat them as if they are all from the same state. Currently, fishermen who live farther away from healthy fish stocks need to expend their extremely limited number of permitted days-at-sea simply steaming to and from these stocks, while those who live closer to the stocks can spend more of their days-at-sea actually fishing. I am proposing that regional fishery management councils analyze these impacts and, if necessary, take action to eliminate such inequities. Other key features of this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization would address essential fish habitat and areas of particular concern; authorizations for cooperative research, capacity reduction, and fishing quota systems; and language to improve social and ecological impact assessments, data and information management, public meeting notices, and scientific peer reviews. Individually and collectively, the provisions in this bill present a way forward in improving federal fisheries management. This bill preserves the goal and intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, yet it enhances the abilities of managers and fishermen to apply it in a way that can better achieve the Act's objectives and actually achieve sustainability in our fisheries. Finally, I would like to thank all those fishermen, managers, scientists, and special interest groups that contributed ideas and information to the long process of developing this reauthorization bill. Their countless contributions serve as invaluable pieces to a very complex puzzle, and I am confident that our efforts will improve the state of federal fisheries management. I look forward to receiving additional fisheries policy comments and recommendations in the weeks and months ahead, including those from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and I encourage my colleagues throughout Congress to take action in support of this Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization effort. Through our collective efforts, sustainable fisheries in the United States can and will become a reality.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and update fisheries policy to better satisfy the ever-changing needs of our Nation's fish stocks and fishing communities. In 1976, the year in which the Magnuson-Stevens Act was written, our commercial fisheries were in grave danger of being exploited beyond their ability to recover. Passage of the Act has provided a more balanced approach in fulfilling our economic needs by also promoting responsible conservation and stewardship of our resources. Even as it sought to provide better management for the Nation's resources as a whole, this law recognized that our fisheries have vastly different regional problems. The result was the creation of a regional management council in each of the country's eight major marine fisheries. These councils, with substantial input from the local community, are responsible for creating the management plans by which their fish stocks are regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Services. This structure has been vital in allowing the active stakeholders in each region to provide meaningful input to the management process. Since the enactment of this legislation, domestic offshore catches have increased so dramatically that our fisheries now add billions of dollars to the Nation's economy every year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Because of this increase in fishing harvests and the pressure to fish more than could be sustained, in 1996 Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act to amend and enhance the Magnuson- Stevens Act. The new amendments included new guidelines for conservation of both targeted fisheries and bycatch, or incidentally- caught fish and other marine life. The Act required that overfished stocks be rebuilt within a 10 year timeframe. In addition, the provisions added a requirement for the protection of all essential fish habitat for each fishery. The overarching goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure prosperity for all United States fisheries by ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks. This goal, and the means for achieving it, are as important today as they were in 1996. I supported the Act, because I saw in it great potential for sustaining fishing communities and the stocks upon which they depend. In the nearly 8 years since we last renewed and reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however, we have witnessed both prosperity and degradation in different fisheries affected by this law. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Annual Report in 2003, certain fisheries have thrived; for example, sea scallops on Georges Bank have increased 20-fold from 1994 to 2002, silver hake in the Northeast was declared fully rebuilt in 2002, and recovery of dozens of other stocks is well underway. The National Marine Fisheries Services' most recent survey of young Georges Bank haddock indicates a population boom with the potential to be the largest ever recorded, putting that fishery well on the road to its recovery goal. Conversely, other fisheries have not fared as well, as demonstrated by the fact that overfishing commenced in 13 U.S. fisheries between 1997 and 2002. As Chair of the Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, I have sought answers as to why the Magnuson- Stevens Act has apparently worked well for some fisheries, but not others. Representing a state with scores of fishing communities and thousands of fisheries workers, I understand the great importance of making sure that our federal fisheries laws are working for all of our Nation's fisheries. In seeking these answers, during the 106th Congress I traveled across the country and held a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In Washington, D.C. Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts, I heard official testimony from over 70 witnesses. Our subcommittee received hundreds of comments, views, and recommendations from federal and state officials, regional council chairmen and members, other fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the conservation community, and many others interested in fisheries management. What the subcommittee learned during these hearing--and which continues to be reinforced by more recent fisheries events, comments, and recommendations--is that most of the shortcomings in our federal fisheries policy are products of how the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been interpreted and applied to real-life fisheries problems. While the underpinnings of the Act are sound, it has become clear that implementation of the Act has often been inconsistent with Congressional intent. That is the primary challenge before us today: to clarify how the goals of conservation and management can be achieved for our Nation's fisheries, and ensure effective implementation of the Act. What we need is a federal fisheries policy that can be interpreted and applied in ways that recognize and respond to the unique conditions facing each individual fishery. Of the hundreds of fisheries occurring around our Nation's coastline, no two are exactly alike. The conservation measures that work in one fishery cannot always be transferred to another. The Magnuson-Stevens act must express enough flexibility to accommodate these variations, so that managers can craft unique, innovative solutions based on the conditions and needs of the fish stocks and fishing communities in question. I first attempted to address these issues when I introduced S. 2832, the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2000, as well as bills authorizing national standards for fishing quota systems. During the last several years, the need for these amendments--as well as new amendments to meet evolving fisheries needs--has only intensified. It is this fact that underlies the bill I introduce today, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act Amendments of 2004. This bill contains several specific measures for enhancing management flexibility. First and foremost, this bill would repeal the 10-year timeline for rebuilding fish stocks and the unnecessarily-rigid measures that stem from it. This provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act is not based on fish population dynamics, but instead imposes a stringent and arbitrary time-frame inappropriate for the diverse needs of each individual fishery. This bill would replace it with a system that allows a more adaptive approach for determining harvest rates. I am proposing that fishing mortality rates simply be limited to the maximum sustainable yield that a stock can produce in any given year. This fishing rate would not permit overfishing; it would allow stocks to rebuild over time to a level that achieves ecosystem balance. Another new proposal in this bill would improve managers' ability to fairly distribute access to distant-water fish stocks. As is now occurring in the New England groundfishery, fishermen from different states are unevenly impacted by management measures that treat them as if they are all from the same state. Currently, fishermen who live farther away from healthy fish stocks need to expend their extremely limited number of permitted days-at-sea simply steaming to and from these stocks, while those who live closer to the stocks can spend more of their days-at-sea actually fishing. I am proposing that regional fishery management councils analyze these impacts and, if necessary, take action to eliminate such inequities. Other key features of this Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization would address essential fish habitat and areas of particular concern; authorizations for cooperative research, capacity reduction, and fishing quota systems; and language to improve social and ecological impact assessments, data and information management, public meeting notices, and scientific peer reviews. Individually and collectively, the provisions in this bill present a way forward in improving federal fisheries management. This bill preserves the goal and intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, yet it enhances the abilities of managers and fishermen to apply it in a way that can better achieve the Act's objectives and actually achieve sustainability in our fisheries. Finally, I would like to thank all those fishermen, managers, scientists, and special interest groups that contributed ideas and information to the long process of developing this reauthorization bill. Their countless contributions serve as invaluable pieces to a very complex puzzle, and I am confident that our efforts will improve the state of federal fisheries management. I look forward to receiving additional fisheries policy comments and recommendations in the weeks and months ahead, including those from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and I encourage my colleagues throughout Congress to take action in support of this Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization effort. Through our collective efforts, sustainable fisheries in the United States can and will become a reality.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, the Senate version of the highway bill, also known as SAFETEA. Few things that we in Congress do this year will have as great of an impact on our fellow citizens as enacting a 6-year successor to the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. Simply put, enacting a highway bill this year will create jobs, reduce congestion and cut down on highway fatalities in every city and town across the country. Debate on this bill is long overdue, as TEA-21 originally expired on September 30, 2003, and thus it has been necessary to extend these programs until the end of February. The primary reason for this delay was that the Senate was unable to come to an agreement on how to raise the necessary revenue to provide the $311 billion in funding for highways and transit over 6 years that 79 Senators--myself included-- voted for as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. As such, I was pleased to have been able to support, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, a revenue package that I feel will break the logjam on this issue and allow us to move forward on enacting a comprehensive, 6 year surface transportation bill this year. The Finance Committee bill, which was adopted on February 2 by a vote of 17 to 4, generates the Senate 6-year funding level without raising the Federal gasoline tax, resorting to tax-credit bonds or negatively impacting the general fund. Like many of my colleagues, I would have serious concerns about any financing proposals that would raise taxes on American consumers and small businesses, or that would require massive general fund transfers for transportation programs. I commend Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for navigating through these challenges on highway financing and increasing the likelihood that Congress will get the job done this year. We have a big job to do in a small amount of time. It is critically important to our State Departments of Transportation that we enact a 6- year bill as soon as possible. States are clamoring for a comprehensive highway bill because, in addition to the funding they stand to get, a full reauthorization allows them to plan for the future. Without such a long-term bill, major projects--including many in my home State--simply cannot go forward. It is regrettable that Congress did not complete its work in 2003 by reauthorizing these programs. Thus, we must seize this opportunity and fulfill our duty now--another 6-month delay is simply not acceptable. As we debate the appropriate level of spending in this bill, let us not lose sight of the fact that our country's transportation funding needs are simply staggering. If we want to start improving--let alone maintaining--the current system of highways, bridges, and transit infrastructure in this country, overall Federal surface transportation spending must reach at least $75 billion annually by fiscal year 2009, according to a 2002 Department of Transportation's, DOT, Conditions and Performance report. The bill before us today provides $255 billion for highways and $56.5 billion transit over six years. To put those numbers into context, they translate into an average annual Federal investment of $51.8 billion per year through 2009 under SAFETEA--still far short of the figured cited by DOT needed to improve our country's transportation infrastructure. While the DOT's 2002 report gives us an idea of the funding levels needed nationwide to enhance our transportation system, I wanted to speak for a moment on the funding needs of my home State of Maine. The Maine highway system is the most important facet of a transportation network that serves the largest State in the northeastern United States, and totals 22,612 road miles, which includes 367 miles of interstate highways. And as a State with an abundance of islands, rivers, lakes and streams, the State of Maine maintains an extraordinary number of bridges, including 3,564 highway bridges with at least a 10-foot span. Today, Maine's highway system is carrying an ever-growing volume of vehicles. Highway use has increased from about 7.5 billion vehicle miles in 1980 to more than 13 billion vehicle miles traveled, VMT, in 2000. The Maine Department of Transportation's, MDOT, Twenty Year Transportation Plan projects that VMT will grow by 18 percent, to about 16 billion VMT, by the year 2020. Put simply, the most pressing issue facing this extensive transportation system is its age. As MDOT's Twenty Year Plan puts it: Our most dramatic challenge is that our infrastructure is aging. Roads, bridges . . . and other facilities that were built decades ago are now reaching, or have surpassed, their life expectancies. In many cases, this translates into the reality that repairs and rehabilitation are no longer appropriate; the time has come for many replacement and reconstruction projects. This is especially true for a significant number of major bridges around the State, some of which offer the only practical and cost-effective method for crossing rivers and other bodies of water. Given the challenges facing the State in maintaining its transportation infrastructure, and given that a good road system is absolutely critical to economic development and job creation in both rural and urban areas of Maine, I am pleased with the projected funding for Maine in the formula section of S. 1072. Over the 6-year life of the Senate bill, Maine will receive $1.169 billion in highway funding, an increase of $292 million, or 33.4 percent, from Maine's 1998 TEA-21 funding. This funding increase is particularly critical when considering that during the last reauthorization in 1998, when the average State increase was 40 percent, Maine received only a 17 percent increase. I commend Chairmen Inhofe and Bond, and Senators Jeffords and Reid for their careful consideration and hard work on these formulas. In doing so, they have recognized that Maine, as the largest State in New England in terms of landmass, but with a relatively low population density, simply needs all the help it can get from the Federal Government with the costs of maintaining the national highway system While I am certainly optimistic about the funding Maine will receive under the EPW Committee's proposed formulas, I also intend to fight for ``high priority project'' funding for several Maine road and bridge projects that are in dire need of Federal support. These important projects include the replacement of the 72-year-old Waldo-Hancock Bridge over the Penobscot River; the Aroostook North-South Highway project to connect the northern part of my State with the terminus of I-95 at Houlton; an East-West Highway running from Calais, ME, to the New Hampshire border that will address the woeful state of east-west connectivity in Maine; and the Gorham bypass, a vital congestion mitigation project in southern Maine. While first-class roads are important for economic development, safe roads are just as essential to the quality of life of our citizens. As such, during the reauthorization process I intend to raise an issue of utmost importance to Maine: that of keeping heavy trucks off of our local roads. Safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and highways, and I have long been concerned that the existing interstate weight limits in my State have the perverse impact of forcing trucks onto State and local secondary roads that were never designed to handle heavy commercial trucks safely. These State and local routes are narrow roads with narrow lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones. Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits--80,000 pounds--on the interstate system, but the fact is there are a myriad of exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads do not. Because of these long-standing safety concerns, MDOT has spent the last several years studying the potential impacts of waiving the Federal weight limits throughout the State. The preliminary results of their study clearly show the wisdom of allowing heavy trucks to travel on the interstate system rather than local roads. Specifically, MDOT estimates that waiving Federal weight limits would result in three fewer truck crashes in Maine every year. In addition to the safety benefits, waiving weight limits would save MDOT between $1 million and $1.65 million every year on pavement costs, and approximately $300,000 per year on bridge rehabilitation costs. Overall, when considering safety and road construction costs, the economic benefit to the State and Maine citizens would be between $1.6 million and $2.3 million annually. The safety and economic benefits of getting heavy trucks off of Maine local roads and onto the interstate are enormous. As such, I have filed an amendment to the highway bill that would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the interstate system within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious public safety issue. I am aware that the current truck weight limit impacts different States in different ways, but for Maine, at the heart of the issue is a simple question: Do we want heavy trucks on the highway, where they belong, or on local roads running right through the heart of our communities? I hope to work with the chair and ranking member of the EPW Committee to address this issue as we consider the highway bill. Another priority of mine during TEA-21 reauthorization process, as a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, is the issue of our country's intercity passenger rail system. Until December 2001, Maine was one of only a handful of States in the continental United States not served by passenger rail service. I am proud that after a decade of hard work and negotiations, Maine has become a member of the Amtrak family--with service from Boston to Portland, Maine. The State of Maine is also working on plans to upgrade the Boston-Portland line to a high-speed rail service, and also may extend the line even further north in the future. In June 2003, the Commerce Committee--with my support--voted to consider Amtrak reauthorization and TEA-21 reauthorization together. Since then, I have been working with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to make that proposition a reality, including Senators Hutchison, Hollings, and Carper. Rail is a part of our surface transportation system, and I will fight to make sure that a rail title is included in the final highway legislation sent to the President. Simply put, including a passenger and freight rail title in this bill will build on the existing foundation of passenger rail in Maine and further connect my State to the Nation's transportation system--a prospect about which I am very excited. I conclude by saying that another reason I support the legislation we are considering today is because it is not just a roads bill, or a transit bill, or a safety bill, it is also a jobs bill. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500 jobs. The funding in the Senate EPW comprehensive 6-year bill of $255 billion will create approximately 2 million new jobs nationwide, and will create or sustain almost 57,000 highway-related jobs in my home State of Maine. The economic stimulus this bill will provide is reason alone to enact it as soon as possible. I am pleased that the Senate is poised to complete consideration of this legislation. I look forward to working my colleagues with a sense of urgency over the next few days on enacting a comprehensive 6-year surface transportation bill this year. Budget Process Reform

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``The President's FY2005 Budget Request for the SBA.'' The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in 428A Russell Senate Office Building. For further information please contact Wes Coulam 224-5175.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I share my colleagues' concern, particularly with respect to how this application process would apply to small businesses. It is very important that other companies have access to this relief. The application process must provide a means of bringing relief to small companies.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the omnibus. This bill contains several objectionable items that deeply concern me, as chair of the Ocean, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee, because the language drastically and fundamentally changes U.S. fisheries policy, including authorization language for Individual Processor Quotas, a prohibition on implementing a groundfish management plan, and other new fishing quota authorizations. These provisions have serious consequences for our National fisheries policy and the natural resources upon which America's fishermen depend. Allow me to explain my concerns in detail. I have many concerns about the language in this bill that would authorize what is being called the ``Crab Plan'' for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab fishery. This plan contains provisions for establishing a system of Individual Processor Quotas, or IPQs, which would allocate the right to process crab among a group of predetermined processors. IPQs are not allowed under current law--without express authorization IPQs would violate our antitrust laws--and that is why this plan has come before Congress in an appropriations bill. I must make it perfectly clear, up front, that I have worked consistently and forcefully, to reach an agreement with the advocates for IPQs. Twice I scheduled a markup in June for a comprehensive bill which would have created uniform national standards for fishing quotas. The bill was withdrawn from the first markup the evening before it was scheduled to occur because, regrettably the prior existing agreement on the bill fell through. I withdrew the bill from the second markup after I was not able to reach consensus to preserve the original intent of uniform national standards for fishing quota plans in the hopes of finding a future agreement. As chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard, I have worked hard to address fisheries policy in a consistent basis that is national in scope but flexible enough to allow for regional differences, which is the underlying tenet of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Therefore I am adamantly opposed to another circumvention of the authorization and fishery management process. This provision circumvents the Magnuson-Stevens Act and provides North Pacific processors and fishermen special treatment under the law. If we allow this provision to proceed, we will set a national precedent that has the potential to further undermine the regional fishery management system established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This provision will send us further down the road of having Congress directly managing fisheries--something Congress expressly decided not to do under the landmark 1976 law. Why should we have an established fishery management system if we only follow it in part of the country? Under existing law, if a Fisheries Management Council wants to create a safer fishery with fishing quotas, they already have the option of doing so. However, it appears this legislation will only allow fishing quotas if processors get a separate quota system. Because of my great interest in encouraging fishermen's safety, I find it deeply disturbing to make a fishing quota plan approval contingent on a processor quota plan. Essentially, these fishermen are being told that they must continue to fish in the current, unsafe, derby-style manner unless Congress approves this processor quota plan. The processor quota system proposed in the omnibus would work by requiring that crab fishermen deliver 90 percent of all future catch, indefinitely, to predetermined processors. This effectively divides market share so that processors are guaranteed a certain amount of crabs to process, thereby removing competition from the dock-side price setting process. Would we tell any other business that they had to sell 9 out of every 10 products to only one buyer, regardless of what price is offered? Not in this country. Another effect of the processor quota program is that it would constrain new businesses from entering and competing in the processing sector. Technically, under this plan a new processor could try to start a business by buying another company's share of processing quota, but at what price? What processor would want to sell their guaranteed market share? The greatest concern I have, however, is that processor quotas do not improve fishermen's safety or conservation. Fishing quotas can help achieve these goals, but the only purpose of processor quotas is to channel market share and bargaining power into processing companies. We must not forget that the whole point of fishery management is to promote a safe and orderly fishery, and processor quotas do nothing to make a fishery safer or better conserve their fishing stocks. It just lets the big processing companies get richer. Nevertheless, those who want IPQs often claim that my attempts to simply question this plan is preventing a safer plan from ever happening. This could not be further from the truth. To suggest that IPQ opponents are putting fishermen at risk is completely unacceptable and inaccurate. As long as IPQs remain part of the crab plan, however, Congress must properly address the very serious economic and public policy questions they present. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The Congress is being asked to grant individual companies a guaranteed share of the crab market, in perpetuity. Should Congress also put similar limits on to whom processors can sell their product? Shall we legislate to which fish markets and restaurants this seafood can then go? Those who want IPQs claim that processors need these quotas to protect their investment if a fishing quota system is allowed. They think that their processing plants would sit unused if a fishing quota system brings fish in at different times, and that they would lose money. The problem is, all these claims are based on speculation. How do we know what economic harm would occur? Even if processors were to lose money, how do we know that IPQs are the best or only answer? The fact is, the in-depth studies needed to answer these questions have not been done. The sensitive economic data necessary for these studies have not even been released by processors. What has been offered as the ``analysis'' for this plan is incomplete and its accuracy cannot be verified through independent reviewers. In short, processor quotas are a very broad and costly response to a speculated problem. Clearly, I have a lot of questions about this plan, as do fishermen around the country, several branches of the Federal Government, and the editorial boards of at least 11 major newspapers. I have been seeking answers for more than a year, and I have yet to receive satisfactory responses. As chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I take my fisheries oversight and authorization responsibility very seriously. Proper oversight demands answers to these very basic questions. Make no mistake--the proposed IPQ plan is indeed precedent setting. Because of this, processors and fishermen around the country are watching our actions in the Senate very carefully. Already processors are pursuing an IPQ system for other west coast fisheries, and some are even advocating processor quotas for the entire country. Fishermen's concerns about IPQs are justified, according to the Department of Justice. As chart I shows, on August 27, 2003, the Assistant Attorney General's Antitrust Division wrote a letter to the Department of Commerce General Counsel, stating that the IPQ plan would, and I quote, ``likely reduce beneficial competition among processors with no countervailing efficiency benefit.'' They also said that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which manages our fisheries, should oppose IPQs. This is a very strong condemnation of the proposed IPQ plan and validates many of the fishermen's concerns. In addition, as two other charts illustrate, the National Research Council and the General Accounting Office studied the impacts of fishing quota systems on the processing sector in other fisheries, and they found that impacts of other fishing quota plans on processors was inconclusive; some processors were adversely impacted while other processors clearly benefited. As such, these studies determined that there is no compelling reason to authorize a processor quota system. They recommend that if a fishing quota system does result in economic damage for processors, then more directed remedial action should be pursued based on what harms actually occur. Most notably, however, the administration has gone on record as saying that they do not support IPQs as proposed for the crab plan. Dr. Bill Hogarth, NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, testified at the October 22 fisheries management hearing which I chaired, and he stated that the administration only supports the idea that processors could buy fishing quota--not processing quota--if a fishery management council deemed it appropriate. It is clear that the administration does not support the IPQ system. Beyond my grave concerns with this language, I also have many concerns about the language added only days before the House voted on this package, that threatens to send New England groundfish management into a tailspin. This is a fishery that has existed for more than 400 years, and has struggled to survive through years of significant reductions in fishing. In 2001, several environmental groups sued the administration for not following the rebuilding requirements of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act. They won this suit, and ever since this ruling the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has been overseeing the creation of a new groundfish management plan that adheres to the law and will help this fishery--which has already made substantial recovery in the last several years--be further restored. On November 6, 2003, the New England Fishery Management Council proposed a new plan, known as ``amendment 13,'' for this fishery. The Secretary of Commerce is now in the final phases of improving this plan before it is approved and implemented this coming May. This plan, as proposed, incorporates a great deal of input from fishermen and fishing communities throughout New England, and many members of the industry support the key elements of this plan. It is true that, as originally proposed, the plan would have shifted much of the effort toward Massachusetts and have drastic economic impacts on Maine, and that is why I have secured commitments from the Secretary of Commerce to ameliorate these impacts in the final version of the plan. For these reasons, New England groundfish managers have made progress in moving fisheries management out of the courtroom. This whole process, however, would likely be derailed by the language in this bill. Instead of allowing the Secretary to complete work on a plan that follows the law and helps fish and fishermen, this language would prevent the administration from spending any money on implementing the new plan. In fact, this language would outlaw any plan from being implemented, other than a specific set of interim regulations that were put in place while the new plan was being developed. The problem is, these interim regulations do not follow the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, they unfairly keep the small-boat groundfishing fleet throughout New England at an economic disadvantage, and they expire in a few short months. If this language passes, it will be illegal for the Secretary of Commerce to follow the very requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This language does not lift the requirements that this Federal fisheries law be followed, but it simply makes it impossible for the law to be followed and makes it impossible for the Secretary to assist in its implementation even if it is to ensure the law is being followed. If this passes, Secretary Evans could be held in contempt of court, and the future of the New England groundfishery may revert to court order, indefinitely. Moreover, according to this language, the only regulations that could be implemented maintain crippling cuts on the small boat, inshore groundfishing fleet. This sector of the groundfishery forms the economic backbone of small coastal communities throughout New England, and many of these fishermen have worked diligently to contribute to the new management plan that the Secretary is now refining. The small-boat sector employs thousands of independent fishermen and fishing-related businesses throughout New England, and most of them do not support this language--and for good reason. Proponents of the rider try to make a compelling case that the Secretary's proposed rebuilding plan is flawed because it relies on unreasonably high fish population rebuilding goals and that the groundfish stocks are already rebuilding, so a new plan is not needed. Both of these statements are true, and that is why I have been working with the administration to refine the council's plan in ways that better take these facts into account and asked it to conduct an independent socioeconomic analysis of the potential impacts of the new regulations. Also, as chair of the subcommittee with oversight of fisheries I am actively working to address the problems with the underlying law and change fisheries management so our nation truly benefits. I will be pushing a reauthorization of the act during this session of Congress that will address the existing problems in fisheries management. The bill language in question does nothing to change these facts, and it does nothing to factor them into a more reasonable rebuilding plan or change the underlying law. The fishing rules that this language would in fact allow simply try to ignore the reality that rebuilding targets do exist. This language will not lead to any management system that complies with the law, and it will not change the reality facing our small-boat groundfishermen. Let me be clear: this language risks putting the management of the New England groundfish industry back before the court, allowing the judge to make any and all subsequent management decisions. In short, this language undercuts years of hard work, sacrifice, and compromise that have gotten the New England groundfishery back on track. It forces the Secretary of Commerce to break the law, and it risks further damaging the hardworking men and women who want to continue to move forward on groundfish sustainability. This language risks harming Maine, New England, and our entire Nation's fisheries policy. If this provision becomes law it has the potential to lead to the downfall of the council-based fishery management process, and risks ending a way of life that has sustained New England fishermen for centuries. The omnibus contains other undesirable fisheries policy changes, such as authorization language for Alaskan rockfish processor quotas and Aleut corporation quotas. These other two quota programs have never been presented to the authorizing committee in any form--nor have they gone through the Fisheries Management Council process--so I must object to fisheries policy authorization language that has circumvented all proper review channels. Because of these highly objectionable authorizations, I see no other choice than to oppose any bill that contains these provisions. I urge those of my colleagues who have an interest in proper fisheries management and sound economic policy to oppose this as well. We, in Congress, are entrusted with the great responsibility to thoughtfully review such policy matters; we owe no less to our fisheries constituents. Those that support this bill would be responsible for creating a cartel that would effectively control an entire market, and for undermining the basis of council-based fisheries management in the United States as well as the very foundation of our Nation's free market system. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced charts in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. In a letter that 43 colleagues sent, we expressed our strong opposition to this ideological venture. It is rewarding to note that significant changes were made that transformed the full-scale national premium support proposal into a limited bona-fide demonstration project, as seen in this chart. Where once efforts centered on the wholesale national privatization of Medicare under a proposal that offered seniors zero protections from premium fluctuations, conferees shifted to crafting a bona-fide demonstration project. Notably, this proposal exempts seniors from the demonstration who have incomes below 150 percent of poverty. This bill includes a sunset that ends the demonstration project after six years, limits premium increases to 5 percent annually; and because the demonstration is phased in over 4 years, the actual impact to premiums is significantly less than 5 percent. In fact, the true cap on premiums during the first 4 years of the 6 year demo is only one- quarter of the five percent increase. Further, under the initial proposal the premium increases would have compounded annually, which could have resulted in a net increase in the traditional Medicare premiums of over 30 percent during the 6 year project. But we worked with the conferees and even this component was removed so that the increases are not compounded. Finally, we were able to secure support to include selection criteria that identifies qualifying MSAs. Sites must have at least 25 percent private plan participation and seniors living within the MSA must have access to at least two local private plans. Further, the demo must include--one of the largest MSAs--one with low population density--one multi-State MSA--and all must be from different parts of the country. Under this criteria, Maine will not qualify as a demonstration site. According to CBO this criteria serves to limit the scope of the project to between 650,000 and 1 million seniors, as opposed to the proposal we addressed in our letter, which would have captured 10 million seniors. Looking back it is remarkable how far this provision has come. Where discussion back in October once focused on the House-passed provisions that created a national premium support program, we now are considering a limited, bona-fide demonstration project that is a legitimate avenue for exploring new ideas to ensure the future of Medicare. Looking back on the development of the Senate bill, many notions existed about how best to encourage private plans to participate in Medicare. But as we discovered, expectations about the impact and results produced by these proposals often were in conflict. With one proposal, while CMS predicted 43 percent of seniors would participate in private plans, CBO estimated only two percent. Yet at a later point, in considering a measure to establish a payment system for the MedicareAdvantage program, CBO estimated it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, while CMS predicted it would save Medicare money. Clearly, it is imperative that we first test proposals before sending Medicare down a path of change. To do otherwise would be to potentially imperil the very health care system seniors have come to reply upon. So I am pleased that in the final analysis the premium support proposal that once threatened to unravel the very thread of Medicare has been reduced to a limited, focused, true demonstration project, which starts in 2010; is limited to 6 years; is limited to 6 MSAs that according to CBO captures only 1 million seniors; limits premium increases to 5 percent per year without a compounding affect; terminates the financial incentives offered to private plans under the MedicareAdvantage program; and protects seniors whose incomes are below 150 percent of poverty by holding them entirely harmless. There is one place where this conference report fails to hold seniors harmless, and that is in the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs which are increasing at a rate seven times higher than the rate of inflation and grew 16 percent between 1999 and 2002. One effective means to reduce the cost of prescription drugs is through importation. Regrettably, this conference report perpetuates the status quo by insisting on maintaining the safety certification requirements that have to date made it impossible for either the former or current Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the integrity of imported drugs. Yet one in eight American households already use imported prescription drugs, and according to William Hubbard, senior associate commissioner at the FDA, in his testimony before the House Government Reform Committee in June, there is ``no evidence that any American has died from taking a legal drug from another country.'' The FDA has a critical role to play in the Secretary's ability to certify the safety of imported drugs--and they're not fulfilling that responsibility. Rather than expending the resources to develop the tools necessary to improve safety, and thus open access to this medications, the FDA is instead directing their efforts to threaten consumers. This is astounding because we know we have the ability to improve safety. For a few pennies, anti-counterfeiting packaging can be used. We use it on a twenty dollar bill--a lifesaving prescription deserves no less. Further, drug manufacturers were mandated back in 1992 to track their products using a ``pedigree'', something which has yet to be enforced. I challenged the FDA to commit itself to improve packaging and require better tracking to protect consumers, and maintain high confidence in the products of our pharmaceutical industry. The public cannot be held hostage to the seemingly never-ending increase in the cost of prescription drugs, and this a fight that will continue to be waged in the halls of Congress, our citizens deserve no less. So taken in its totality, while I am disappointed with aspects of this legislation, passage of this legislation will be looked upon as a transformational moment in the history of the Medicare program, because now there will be no going back. There will be no returning to the days when Medicare lived in the dark ages, oblivious to the fact that remarkable drugs were available to save lives, prevent disease, and halt the progression of disease. There will be no returning to the days when many needed to be convinced that prescription drug coverage was even a topic worthy of serious debate in the United States Congress. There will be no returning to the days when a quarter of our Nation's seniors struggled without any assistance whatsoever in paying for the prescription drugs that can be the difference between a decent quality of life--and life itself. With this bill, we will finally pass the point of no return--and thankfully so. This bill--while far from perfect--is the new baseline, the new benchmark which future progress will be measured--and attained. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, in viewing this legislation, it is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. For all of these reasons, I will support this conference report, and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.