Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Manufacturers Assistance, and Trade (SMART) Act,'' which responds to the needs of America's small manufacturers. This bill offers a new emphasis on programs and services within the Federal Government that will provide small companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in our global economy. The SMART Act introduces new resources, improves existing programs, and expands those programs that work to serve a larger constituency. It is critical that we revitalize our country's manufacturing base and establish an environment for economic growth and job creation. Small manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing enterprises, employ 12 million people, and supply more than 50 percent of the value-added U.S. production. It is a sector we cannot afford to ignore. In addition, no industry has witnessed a more profound erosion of jobs. The damage manufacturing has sustained is nothing short of alarming. Since July 2000, almost 2.8 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. New England alone lost more than 214,000 jobs between June 1993 through June 2003, with 78 percent of those losses, 166,000 jobs, occurring since January of 2001. In my home State of Maine, we've been shedding jobs at a startling rate over the past decade--and even more so in the past 2 years. Between July 2000 and June 2003 an astounding 17,300 manufacturing jobs were lost. The bottom line is that we must bolster our manufacturing industry, especially with the current 6.0 percent unemployment rate in the United States. To ensure that the road to recovery is robust, we have a special obligation to provide the investment to allow small companies to grow. In fact, it has been reported that for every dollar of final manufacturing output, an additional $1.26 is created in other industry sectors such as suppliers of raw materials, marketing, and retail industries. Looking even more broadly, a healthy manufacturing base is essential to the preservation of our Nation's security and its status as a world power. We must end the trend of becoming increasingly dependent upon other countries for the products we use and rely upon. Now is the crucial time for everyone--industry representatives, Congress, the President, Republicans and Democrats alike--to work together toward the common goal of revitalizing this industry. As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I have been focusing considerable attention on the concerns of small business manufacturers and efforts to aid in their recovery. Last month, I held a field hearing on this critical subject in Lewiston, ME. I invited Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary for International Trade of the Commerce Department, and Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy of the Treasury Department, to participate and explored with them ways to strengthen and expand this vital industry. Their testimony and comments confirmed that we cannot delay and must act quickly to support our small manufacturing base. Additionally, I heard from a number of small businesses in the manufacturing industry. Their testimony confirmed the damage sustained by our country's manufacturing sector, and the sense of urgency that we need to act immediately to assist them. The SMART Act is a vital first step toward helping them do what they do best--create jobs. The bill I introduce today starts by establishing a strong and influential voice for manufacturers within the Federal Government through the creation of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The new Assistant Secretary will be responsible for identifying and addressing the concerns of small manufacturers at the highest level of our Federal Government. Senator Voinovich has introduced S. 1326, which similarly creates an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. I support that bill and Senator Voinovich's efforts to assisting our country's manufacturers. To ensure that the government acts on the needs of manufacturers, the SMART Act creates an Interagency Manufacturing Task Force (IMTF). The mission of the IMTF will be to encourage the Federal departments and agencies to coordinate their efforts by identifying and addressing manufacturing concerns collectively. The IMTF will be chaired by the Commerce Department's new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and will be comprised of representatives from the Federal departments and agencies that directly affect this sector of our economy. In addition, the IMTF will be tasked with the duty of submitting an annual report on their findings and recommendations to the President and the Senate and House Small Business Committees. In conjunction with this government-wide task force, the SMART Act also continues to improve the Federal infrastructure supporting the industry by establishing a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force (SBMTF) within the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has a wide spectrum of programs and services available to small manufacturers. The mission of the new SBMTF will be to refocus the agency's programs and services to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of small manufacturers while still serving all aspects of the small business community. Adding to the information gained from the Committee's hearing, we have reviewed the SBA's programs and services that are geared specifically toward manufacturing and international trade. I was alarmed to learn, during this hearing, that small manufacturers were unfamiliar with the SBA programs that can assist them. These findings revealed that the SBA needs to realign its efforts specifically to include manufacturers in the delivery of the agency's program and services. In order to improve existing SBA small business development programs, the agency needs to take its services beyond the traditional small business enterprise. The SMART Act improves the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs and services so that small manufacturers can grow their business operation, expand their facilities, and purchase new equipment--all of which will result in creating jobs throughout the industry and its supply chain. Partnerships developed between SBA related organizations and non-SBA related entities will be an additional asset for these producers. The SMART Act directs the SBA to develop partnerships with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), community economic development organizations, and the agency's resource partners--such as Small Business Development Centers and SCORE--to create new outreach and training programs for small manufacturers and small businesses in the manufacturing supply chain. The SMART Act requires SCORE, with its long established expertise in counseling, to extend its reach to small manufacturers and exporters through its online counseling services and its community based offices. The Act also directs SCORE to recruit more counselors with manufacturing and international trade expertise and increase its partnerships with manufacturing and exporting related organizations, which will help increase the marketing capabilities of these small producers and exporters. I have also learned that small and medium sized companies are often hesitant to engage in the export of their product as a way to grow their small business, because they are often fearful of the many unfamiliar intricacies involved in doing business in a foreign market. Small businesses currently account for almost $300 billion of yearly export sales--nearly one-third of total U.S. exports. However, according to an Administration survey through the SBA's Export Trade Assistance Partnership, approximately 30 percent of non-exporting small businesses are interested in exporting their products and services. These businesses hold the potential to be a major source for even more economic activity and job growth. The SBA is a pivotal resource in delivering financial and business development tools to businesses seeking to export. The SMART Act improves the SBA's international trade and exporting programs to assist small businesses and manufacturers expand into the export market and play an even greater role in the balance of U.S. trade. The SMART Act also requires the SBA to establish annual goals that are linked to its trade promotion activities, and to develop programs that will help small businesses compete against imports. This objective will be more easily obtained by incrementally increasing the number of SBA representatives at the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) over the next 3 years. To ensure that all States have the same services available, the SBA Office of International Trade will have at least one financial specialist dedicated to the international loan programs and providing oversight of trade financing issues. The SBA's financing programs have helped American small businesses create and retain jobs, even as other sources of financing have become more scarce. This bill provides improvements to the SBA's 7(a), 504, and Surety Bond programs. From Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2002, the 7(a) loan program helped small businesses create more than 1.3 million new jobs by making $37.7 billion in financing available to more than 182,000 small businesses. This bill increases the maximum size of 7(a) loans for small exporters from $2 million to $2.6 million by increasing the maximum amount guaranteed by the SBA from $1 million to $1.3 million. During that same period, the 504 loan program provided more than 20,000 new loans to small businesses, allowing those businesses to create or retain almost 450,000 jobs. The SMART Act increases 504 loan sizes in two ways. First, the bill increases the maximum loan size for manufacturing projects by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee, which is 40 percent of the total loan size, from $1 million to $4 million. Second, for loans to exporters, the bill increases the maximum loan size from $3.25 million to $5 million by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee from $1.3 million to $2 million. Finally, the bill clarifies that under the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, the SBA may guarantee bonds for specific contracts of $2 million or less, even if the total range of affiliated contracts may exceed $2 million. These SBA financing programs have helped to create millions of jobs in America, and manufacturers and exporters have been an important part of that success. This bill will increase small companies' and exporters' ability to obtain vital capital that will help them compete in a very difficult international environment and enable them to create more jobs for American workers. I am drawing these provisions from another bill I have authored, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 203 (S. 1375), which the Committee and the Senate unanimously approved earlier this year. While we are waiting for the House of Representatives to pass an SBA reauthorization bill, I believe that given the importance of these financing provisions, they must be included in this bill as well to increase their chance of being signed into law. Because Federal assistance for small manufacturers should extend beyond the SBA, the SMART Act will also establish a new Assistant United States Trade Representatives for Small Business within the Office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR). This office will be tasked with focusing on small businesses', including small manufacturers, concerns in trade negotiations and promoting their exports. There are currently 21 Assistant USTRs covering issues from services to telecommunications to labor. While small businesses face many of the same issues that serve as barriers to trade as many of the largest multinational corporations, they do not have the same resources to overcome these barriers, thus blocking them from reaping the benefits of international trade. In particular, small businesses do not have the resources necessary to settle private trade disputes in a timely and cost effective fashion, meet physical presence requirements in other countries, conform to complex customs procedures, or meet off-set exclusions in government procurement. By establishing a new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, we will ensure that the views and concerns of small businesses will have an appropriate seat at the negotiating table and help secure the competitiveness of our small exporters abroad. The Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade Act answers the call for help that I have heard too often of late from small manufacturers in this country. These improvements to existing resources within the Federal government will give these companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in the global economy. This bill is a critical starting point to revitalize our country's manufacturing base and create an environment that allows them to grow and create jobs again. We must help these businesses access the global marketplace through expanded exporting opportunities and assistance. I intend to work with all groups and interested parties that are committed to improving and passing this bill. There are still many needs that face our Nation's manufacturers--and this is just the beginning. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the provisions of this bill are enacted so that these companies can continue to grow and reach their full potential. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, today, we stand at the precipice of opportunity. Culminating a decade of work, we have before us legislation that will forever change the face of Medicare--providing every senior in America with a prescription drug benefit under a Medicare program that will experience the largest expansion in its 38- year history. We would not have arrived at this day without the exceptional commitment made by Finance Chairman Grassley to advance this issue and meld the considerable political and policy differences that have marked the development of this bill. His efforts were nothing short of Herculean from the outset, and guided us through a challenging conference. He, as well as Ranking Member Baucus, have remained committed to the bipartisan principles that forged the Senate legislation, which garnered the support of 16 members of the Finance Committee, and a remarkable 76 members of the full Senate. I want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the President--who in 2001 challenged Congress to enact the Medicare Prescription drug benefit . . . propounded a set of principles . . . and has provided strong impetus during this ``home stretch'' for Congress to complete our work and send to his desk legislation he can sign this year. I know firsthand from my conversations with the President that this is a cornerstone of his agenda and absent his driving force we wouldn't be here today. So, too, has the Majority Leader redoubled his longstanding and unflagging commitment to enacting into law a bipartisan bill, moving us ever closer to that goal. Thanks to the unique confluence of his skills . . . his unparalleled knowledge and grasp of the issue . . . and his single-mindedness of purpose, more than three quarters of the Senate came together to support S. 1, the Senate's prescription drug bill. And in bringing us to the eve of final passage of this conference report, he has been typically respectful of--and responsive to--all the wide- ranging concerns and recommendations voiced to him, and I thank him for his leadership and for guiding and shaping this process to its ultimate and successful conclusion. I also want to extend my appreciation to my colleagues Senators Hatch, Breaux, and Jeffords, with whom I've worked so closely on a prescription drug benefit over the past 3 years--they have been stalwarts in this fight and together we developed the template for the ``tripartisan'' proposal that helped frame the proposal before us. And certainly no one has more fiercely championed the cause than another colleague I've joined with in this battle in the past--Senator Kennedy--who I recognize does not support this conference report, but whose early, longstanding involvement and passionate policy advocacy unquestionably built momentum for this issue in Congress. Finally, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Ron Wyden, with whom I began my ``prescription drug coverage journey'' almost 6 years ago, when we developed the first bipartisan prescription drug coverage bill in the Senate, which established the principles that I believed were critical to shaping this bill. We reached across the party isle because we recognized that only a bipartisan plan could ever ``see the light of day''. And we joined forces as members of the Budget Committee to establish in the 2001 budget a $40 billion, 5-year reserve fund. Well, look how far we've now come--from the $370 billion tripartisan plan developed last year, to the historic passage of S. 1 in the Senate this past June. But I can tell you from my own personal and professional experience that Congress' journey along this road has never been easy--although it has been infinitely more arduous for America's seniors. The process has borne witness to a multiplicity of goals and philosophies across the spectrum. Some have wanted to add a drug benefit to the existing Medicare program to leverage the purchasing power of 40 million seniors, while others have sought to use the issue either as a vehicle for the wholesale privatization of Medicare, or full-scale, Government administered benefits. Some have said we are providing too great an incentive for people to enroll in private plans, while others argue we are starving those very same plans. And some have argued the benefits provided in a particular bill are inadequate, while others submit that they are, in fact, too generous and should be limited to a low-income catastrophic plan. Yet, today, we essentially all agree we are well beyond one question--the question of need. Therefore, it is imperative we acknowledge the reality that, just as the journey thus far has been imperiled by the ``slings and arrows'' of those on all sides of this issue, it will not become easier with the passage of time--not when you're debating the creation of the largest domestic program in nominal terms ever. Not when you're attempting the largest expansion in the history of the third largest Federal domestic spending program. And not when significant challenges loom on the horizon such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare as 77 million baby-boomers begin to retire in 2013--all while we face record-setting Federal deficits. We did have an optimal window for positive change just 2\1/2\ years ago when the Congressional Budget office was projecting surpluses ``as far as the eye could see''--about $5.6 trillion through 2011. Now, next year's deficit alone is projected at nearly $500 billion. That is how quickly the tide can turn. That is how quickly opportunities can be lost. Just think--a little over a year ago, the Senate was presented with a choice between a ``tripartisan'' plan that ensured coverage would be available to all seniors . . . was comprehensive, with the maximum benefit possible for lower-income seniors . . . and was a permanent part of the Medicare program--and the alternative, which was temporary and would have ``sunset'' . . . and would have statutorily restricted access to drugs. Talk about lost opportunities! Indeed, those who are dissatisfied with what we have before us today should fondly recall that tripartisan bill, and lament its unfortunate demise. So here we are. The conference report before us is the result of an attempt to balance the competing viewpoints not only among Members, but between the stunningly disparate House and Senate legislation. The simple truth is, while I continue to prefer the Senate bill, it is this conference report upon which we will vote. And after careful review, I have concluded that while it isn't everything it could be, it isn't everything it should be. In the end, millions of seniors will benefit over the stagnation of the status quo. To quote AARP, ``Enactment of this legislation is essential to strengthening health security for all Americans. This is an important step toward fulfilling a longstanding promise to older and disabled Americans and their families. While this legislation is not perfect, it will help millions of people, especially those with low incomes and high drug costs.'' Margaret Thatcher once said, ``You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.'' Well, some of us have been fighting this battle now for nearly 6 years. The bottom line is, we cannot hold hostage our seniors' futures to a political unwillingness to compromise. And this bill provides us with our best available opportunity to secure, for the first time, a legislative foothold that honors the same basic principles I have expounded upon since I first came to this issue-- That, in keeping with the basic tenets of Medicare, the prescription drug benefit must be universal, comprehensive, affordable, voluntary, permanent, and provide equal benefits across all plans. And that--like the Senate bill and the tripartisan proposal before that--it directs the most assistance toward those seniors with the lowest incomes . . . includes a reliable Government fallback of last resort . . . and continues to ensure seniors access to, and the stability of, the traditional Medicare program. In its totality, this conference report fulfills all of these principles. In evaluating the individual components of the package, Mr. President, we should be mindful of how we arrived at this destination. As the Senate passed a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, the House passed its bill with the most razor thin margin of just one vote--and as we witnessed it passed the conference by a mere five vote margin, after an historic three hour vote held open to secure the necessary votes. And we see the result in the starkest terms, reflected in the nature of the benefit designed out of necessity by the conferees. It includes aspects modeled after each bill--the deductible was set at the House's lower level of $250 and the conferees worked to improve this proposal by offering a benefit with an actuarial value higher than the benefit from both bills. However, in providing these improvements concessions had to be made--in doing so the Senate's $4,500 benefit cap was lowered to $2,250. But in the same respect the cost sharing provided under this cap was lowered from 50 percent provided for in the Senate bill to 25 percent. So as you can see, while not perfect this benefit represents the art of compromise. Recognizing that this bill is not perfect, I find it imperative to note I was disappointed to see two provisions that I oppose are included in the conference report--means testing of the Part B premium and indexing of the Part B deductible. The Senate-passed bill did not include language to means test the Part B premium and I successfully fought to defeat efforts on the Senate floor to add it. Unfortunately, the House bill did contain this concept and the conferees chose to include in it the conference report. And while the Senate bill did contain language to index the Part B deductible, I opposed this provision in the Finance Committee and had hoped it would be removed by the conferees. But in recognizing the flaws of this proposal, at the same time, the conference report will at least get the federal ``foot in the door'' in providing a significant level of assistance to the one-out-of-four Americans who right now have no coverage whatsoever. Most seniors--for a $35 monthly premium--will save 50 percent on their cost of prescription drugs. For example, a senior who spends $3,600 will realize $1,714 annually in savings. And in examining the assistance provided to the lowest income, I am relieved to know that the conferees utilized the model set by the Senate bill. Most critically, in keeping with the Senate bill, seniors with incomes below 150 percent of poverty who qualify for one of the low income categories will not experience a gap in coverage--and will receive a generous level of assistance. This means that in Maine over 93,450 beneficiaries, or more than 40 percent of the Medicare population, will receive a generous benefit with no gap in coverage. And while the Senate bill may have extended this coverage to a greater number of seniors, unlike the Senate bill, this proposal ensures that all seniors, even the so-called ``dual eligibles''--those who qualify for both the Medicare and Medicaid programs--receive a Medicare drug benefit. This will ``federalize'' 47,100 beneficiaries in Maine and approximately 6 million nationally. This results in a savings of $161 million over eight years to the State of Maine. So, while this benefit does not achieve all that I would like, it has laid the foundation from which we can and must build in the future. Yet, not only do seniors deserve a subsidy to help make prescription drugs more affordable, they should also have the benefit of choice when it comes to the coverage they purchase. Because seniors shouldn't be limited in their options for coverage, we ensure that all seniors will have a choice of at least two privately delivered drug plans. Furthermore, all drug plans are required to offer access to two drugs from each therapeutic class and category. Not only does this provide seniors with options, it helps ensure they will receive the drug their doctor determines is the most appropriate. And let us not forget, there was a time when it was proposed that if seniors desired prescription drug coverage, they would be obligated to enter an HMO. Well, thankfully--and appropriately--this conference report shuns the ``one size fits all'' philosophy of placing all seniors into managed care and maintains the critical protection of choice of ensuring seniors can remain in the Medicare program. Seniors absolutely should have the option of staying where they're comfortable--without sacrificing guaranteed and equal prescription drug benefits. Still others on the opposite end of the spectrum have said that the privately delivered stand-alone drug coverage option is doomed to fail--that this type of plan doesn't exist in nature and insurance companies won't participate. However, this conference report includes key principles developed in the Senate bill--including risk corridors, reinsurance and stabilization accounts--which are intended to build a stable, productive model that I believe will attract and keep companies in the program. Ultimately, however, there is no way to guarantee private companies will deliver services in every region of the country. Therefore, as we were developing the Senate bill, many of us who represent the 12 rural States in which no Medicare+Choice programs operate included a fall back of last resort--which I'm pleased to say is sustained in this conference report. This key provision will serve to provide security to beneficiaries by knowing that no matter where they live, they will be assured of coverage even when private plans choose not to participate. Throughout this debate, concerns have been voiced that with the enactment of a Medicare prescription drug benefit some employers will be provoked into reducing coverage that they offer to their former employees. Indeed, I have expressed concern about this issue throughout my six years of involvement in developing Medicare prescription drug legislation. And while I have concluded that we can take steps to mitigate the problem of employers ending coverage, I do not believe we can eliminate it. That is because this bill is not causing employers to cease coverage--in fact, from 1999 to 2002--prior to the enactment of a Medicare prescription drug benefit--almost 10 percent of employers stopped offering retiree coverage. So this bill cannot be held responsible for this problem that exists regardless of the enactment of this bill. But we most definitely should use this bill as an opportunity to help reverse the trend of the last decade and offer incentives that will prompt employers to maintain their retiree benefits. This conference report takes important steps toward alleviating the problem. Looking back to the development of the Senate bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that S. 1 would prompt 37 percent of employers to reduce the drug coverage they offer to their former employers. In comparison, the conference report includes a combination of options--both policy and tax incentives--that CBO, and most importantly employers, believe will provide incentives strong enough to encourage the maintenance of private sector coverage. It reduces the expected drop rate from the Senate bill's 37 percent to 16 percent; this means an additional 1.6 million seniors will retain their employer-sponsored coverage--seniors who might have lost this coverage regardless of the outcome of this bill. This proposal also takes vitally important steps to create better balance within the Medicare program to ensure that all providers, regardless of where they are located, receive adequate and appropriate payments. For too long, States like Maine, which ranks number 47 in Medicare reimbursement, have been underfunded simply because they are rural. This bill, thanks to the leadership and persistence of Chairman Grassley, finally brings Medicare payments into equilibrium. This proposal provides an additional $25 billion over ten years to help States, like Maine, receive more equitable Medicare payments. Hospitals in Maine stand to gain an additional $125 million through payment improvements for our Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH), teaching hospitals, critical access hospitals and rural hospitals. Further, Maine's rural home health care providers will see increases to their reimbursement rates, along with rural ground and air ambulance providers to name just a few. And let us not forget our physicians. This bill reverses the 4.5 percent reimbursement cut expected for 2004 and provides an additional increase to payment rates for rural doctors, which together total more than $22 million. I was especially pleased to have been able to work with the Chairman to add, in the Senate Finance Committee, a provision that would ensure the continuation of the country's rural health care residency training programs. This provision reiterated the Congress' intent to allow physicians to volunteer their time as supervisors of residents, and allowed programs to use Medicare funding to support these residents instead of utilizing funding provided by the community. I added this provision in an effort to protect policy that I worked to include in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which, for the first time, allowed residency training programs to place their trainees outside of hospitals, most often in rural communities, and receive Medicare reimbursement. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently tried to regulate around that law and prohibit programs from utilizing this option by making it so onerous that programs instead choose to move the residents back into the hospital instead of complying with the agency's new rules. While I was able to include the corrective policy in the Senate- passed Medicare bill, some of the House conferees refused to maintain this critical Senate provision. But, working with the Chairman, who recognized the importance of this provision to rural States, I was able to secure support to provide a one-year moratorium that prohibits CMS from taking action against programs that allow physicians who supervise residents to volunteer their time. the provision also calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to perform a review of this issue and report to Congress on the impact to rural training programs if physicians are not allowed to volunteer their time as a supervisor. Though the moratorium is helpful, it does not resolve the issue, and I, therefore, will continue to fight on behalf of these vital programs. I have introduced as a separate bill, S. 1897, which contains the language from the Senate-passed Medicare bill that will in fact protect these programs and ensure their continued viability. This bill also includes a key provision that corrects an inequity that has disadvantaged millions of Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from cancer. This bill directs the Secretary to establish a 2 year transitional benefit in 2004 and 2005 utilizing at least $200 million to allow Medicare to cover all available oral anticancer treatments. Currently, Medicare provides coverage of a limited number of oral anti-cancer drugs that originally were available in intravenous, IV, form. However, since Congress first expanded coverage to this limited type of oral anti-cancer treatments, the technology has advanced and many of the most innovative and effective drugs do not qualify for coverage because they did not evolve from the IV form. By including in the conference report authority for CMS to extend coverage to all oral cancer treatments, we ensure that in 2004 and 2005, prior to implementation of the comprehensive prescription drug benefit, seniors will have access to the best treatment options available. The conference report before us, includes another noteworthy improvement to the Medicare program, one that will help make an important tool in the fight against breast cancer more accessible for women--diagnostic mammography. This year alone, 211,300 women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, and almost 40,000 will die from the disease. Yet, the FDA reports that the number of mammography facilities closing now number over 700 nationwide. These closures have led to longer waiting periods for women scheduling annual and follow-up mammography visits which could lead to delayed diagnosis and delayed treatment. This is not acceptable. The bill before us includes provisions closing the gap between the Medicare reimbursement and the actual cost of diagnostic mammography by removing the reimbursement of diagnostic mammography performed in a hospital setting from the Ambulatory Payment Classification and placing the procedure in the Medicare Fee Schedule. This would bring the hospital technical number closer to the actual cost of the procedure, thus reducing the financial disincentive for hospitals to continue these services. Having been the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill for a number of years, I am pleased the conference report before us today seeks to turn the tide on these closures as too many imaging facilities can no longer afford to offer these procedures due to low Medicare reimbursement. One million additional women become age-eligible for screening mammography each year. This action will help ensure that these women will have access to the screening they need to detect and combat this disease earlier and, hopefully, with less invasive procedures. This inexpensive provision in the Medicare conference report could save countless lives, and I am pleased that it will be enacted into law along with the rest of this bill. Finally--and fortunately--this conference report unquestionably represents the end of the House bill's open-ended efforts to move Medicare toward a national, privatized system through an untested, untried policy known as ``premium support'' that could have led to the patchwork delivery of health care that existed prior to the creation of Medicare in 1965. This approach would have fostered wild fluctuations in premiums for the traditional Medicare program. Whereas, incredibly, Medicare now provides all seniors the same benefit for the same premium, under this proposal premium variations would have occurred not just from State to State, but within a State and even within a congressional district! And you don't have to take my word for it. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid seniors living in Miami, FL, would pay $2,100 a year for traditional Medicare, compared to $900 that seniors would pay in Osceola for the same benefit. And when you compare this to North Carolina, the variation from State to State grows even wider with Rowan County, North Carolina paying just $750 for traditional Medicare. So let there be no mistake, this House-backed provision was a full frontal assault on traditional Medicare. Yet, according to CBO, this proposal that supporters touted as the savior of the program ultimately would have saved Medicare less than $1 billion. I happen to believe that prescription drug legislation should be about providing seniors with a drug benefit. And while we certainly can consider and incorporate new policies that improve and enhance the underlying program. The drug benefit should not be used as what someone appropriately described as a ``Trojan Horse'' to open the door to the privatization of Medicare. I ask unanimous consent that this letter, as well as another letter my colleagues and I sent in October, and an editorial from the Bangor Daily News be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Manufacturers Assistance, and Trade (SMART) Act,'' which responds to the needs of America's small manufacturers. This bill offers a new emphasis on programs and services within the Federal Government that will provide small companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in our global economy. The SMART Act introduces new resources, improves existing programs, and expands those programs that work to serve a larger constituency. It is critical that we revitalize our country's manufacturing base and establish an environment for economic growth and job creation. Small manufacturers constitute over 98 percent of our Nation's manufacturing enterprises, employ 12 million people, and supply more than 50 percent of the value-added U.S. production. It is a sector we cannot afford to ignore. In addition, no industry has witnessed a more profound erosion of jobs. The damage manufacturing has sustained is nothing short of alarming. Since July 2000, almost 2.8 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. New England alone lost more than 214,000 jobs between June 1993 through June 2003, with 78 percent of those losses, 166,000 jobs, occurring since January of 2001. In my home State of Maine, we've been shedding jobs at a startling rate over the past decade--and even more so in the past 2 years. Between July 2000 and June 2003 an astounding 17,300 manufacturing jobs were lost. The bottom line is that we must bolster our manufacturing industry, especially with the current 6.0 percent unemployment rate in the United States. To ensure that the road to recovery is robust, we have a special obligation to provide the investment to allow small companies to grow. In fact, it has been reported that for every dollar of final manufacturing output, an additional $1.26 is created in other industry sectors such as suppliers of raw materials, marketing, and retail industries. Looking even more broadly, a healthy manufacturing base is essential to the preservation of our Nation's security and its status as a world power. We must end the trend of becoming increasingly dependent upon other countries for the products we use and rely upon. Now is the crucial time for everyone--industry representatives, Congress, the President, Republicans and Democrats alike--to work together toward the common goal of revitalizing this industry. As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I have been focusing considerable attention on the concerns of small business manufacturers and efforts to aid in their recovery. Last month, I held a field hearing on this critical subject in Lewiston, ME. I invited Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary for International Trade of the Commerce Department, and Pamela Olson, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy of the Treasury Department, to participate and explored with them ways to strengthen and expand this vital industry. Their testimony and comments confirmed that we cannot delay and must act quickly to support our small manufacturing base. Additionally, I heard from a number of small businesses in the manufacturing industry. Their testimony confirmed the damage sustained by our country's manufacturing sector, and the sense of urgency that we need to act immediately to assist them. The SMART Act is a vital first step toward helping them do what they do best--create jobs. The bill I introduce today starts by establishing a strong and influential voice for manufacturers within the Federal Government through the creation of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The new Assistant Secretary will be responsible for identifying and addressing the concerns of small manufacturers at the highest level of our Federal Government. Senator Voinovich has introduced S. 1326, which similarly creates an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing. I support that bill and Senator Voinovich's efforts to assisting our country's manufacturers. To ensure that the government acts on the needs of manufacturers, the SMART Act creates an Interagency Manufacturing Task Force (IMTF). The mission of the IMTF will be to encourage the Federal departments and agencies to coordinate their efforts by identifying and addressing manufacturing concerns collectively. The IMTF will be chaired by the Commerce Department's new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and will be comprised of representatives from the Federal departments and agencies that directly affect this sector of our economy. In addition, the IMTF will be tasked with the duty of submitting an annual report on their findings and recommendations to the President and the Senate and House Small Business Committees. In conjunction with this government-wide task force, the SMART Act also continues to improve the Federal infrastructure supporting the industry by establishing a Small Business Manufacturing Task Force (SBMTF) within the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has a wide spectrum of programs and services available to small manufacturers. The mission of the new SBMTF will be to refocus the agency's programs and services to ensure that they respond to the particular needs of small manufacturers while still serving all aspects of the small business community. Adding to the information gained from the Committee's hearing, we have reviewed the SBA's programs and services that are geared specifically toward manufacturing and international trade. I was alarmed to learn, during this hearing, that small manufacturers were unfamiliar with the SBA programs that can assist them. These findings revealed that the SBA needs to realign its efforts specifically to include manufacturers in the delivery of the agency's program and services. In order to improve existing SBA small business development programs, the agency needs to take its services beyond the traditional small business enterprise. The SMART Act improves the SBA's entrepreneurial development programs and services so that small manufacturers can grow their business operation, expand their facilities, and purchase new equipment--all of which will result in creating jobs throughout the industry and its supply chain. Partnerships developed between SBA related organizations and non-SBA related entities will be an additional asset for these producers. The SMART Act directs the SBA to develop partnerships with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), community economic development organizations, and the agency's resource partners--such as Small Business Development Centers and SCORE--to create new outreach and training programs for small manufacturers and small businesses in the manufacturing supply chain. The SMART Act requires SCORE, with its long established expertise in counseling, to extend its reach to small manufacturers and exporters through its online counseling services and its community based offices. The Act also directs SCORE to recruit more counselors with manufacturing and international trade expertise and increase its partnerships with manufacturing and exporting related organizations, which will help increase the marketing capabilities of these small producers and exporters. I have also learned that small and medium sized companies are often hesitant to engage in the export of their product as a way to grow their small business, because they are often fearful of the many unfamiliar intricacies involved in doing business in a foreign market. Small businesses currently account for almost $300 billion of yearly export sales--nearly one-third of total U.S. exports. However, according to an Administration survey through the SBA's Export Trade Assistance Partnership, approximately 30 percent of non-exporting small businesses are interested in exporting their products and services. These businesses hold the potential to be a major source for even more economic activity and job growth. The SBA is a pivotal resource in delivering financial and business development tools to businesses seeking to export. The SMART Act improves the SBA's international trade and exporting programs to assist small businesses and manufacturers expand into the export market and play an even greater role in the balance of U.S. trade. The SMART Act also requires the SBA to establish annual goals that are linked to its trade promotion activities, and to develop programs that will help small businesses compete against imports. This objective will be more easily obtained by incrementally increasing the number of SBA representatives at the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) over the next 3 years. To ensure that all States have the same services available, the SBA Office of International Trade will have at least one financial specialist dedicated to the international loan programs and providing oversight of trade financing issues. The SBA's financing programs have helped American small businesses create and retain jobs, even as other sources of financing have become more scarce. This bill provides improvements to the SBA's 7(a), 504, and Surety Bond programs. From Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2002, the 7(a) loan program helped small businesses create more than 1.3 million new jobs by making $37.7 billion in financing available to more than 182,000 small businesses. This bill increases the maximum size of 7(a) loans for small exporters from $2 million to $2.6 million by increasing the maximum amount guaranteed by the SBA from $1 million to $1.3 million. During that same period, the 504 loan program provided more than 20,000 new loans to small businesses, allowing those businesses to create or retain almost 450,000 jobs. The SMART Act increases 504 loan sizes in two ways. First, the bill increases the maximum loan size for manufacturing projects by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee, which is 40 percent of the total loan size, from $1 million to $4 million. Second, for loans to exporters, the bill increases the maximum loan size from $3.25 million to $5 million by increasing the SBA's maximum guarantee from $1.3 million to $2 million. Finally, the bill clarifies that under the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program, the SBA may guarantee bonds for specific contracts of $2 million or less, even if the total range of affiliated contracts may exceed $2 million. These SBA financing programs have helped to create millions of jobs in America, and manufacturers and exporters have been an important part of that success. This bill will increase small companies' and exporters' ability to obtain vital capital that will help them compete in a very difficult international environment and enable them to create more jobs for American workers. I am drawing these provisions from another bill I have authored, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 203 (S. 1375), which the Committee and the Senate unanimously approved earlier this year. While we are waiting for the House of Representatives to pass an SBA reauthorization bill, I believe that given the importance of these financing provisions, they must be included in this bill as well to increase their chance of being signed into law. Because Federal assistance for small manufacturers should extend beyond the SBA, the SMART Act will also establish a new Assistant United States Trade Representatives for Small Business within the Office of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR). This office will be tasked with focusing on small businesses', including small manufacturers, concerns in trade negotiations and promoting their exports. There are currently 21 Assistant USTRs covering issues from services to telecommunications to labor. While small businesses face many of the same issues that serve as barriers to trade as many of the largest multinational corporations, they do not have the same resources to overcome these barriers, thus blocking them from reaping the benefits of international trade. In particular, small businesses do not have the resources necessary to settle private trade disputes in a timely and cost effective fashion, meet physical presence requirements in other countries, conform to complex customs procedures, or meet off-set exclusions in government procurement. By establishing a new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, we will ensure that the views and concerns of small businesses will have an appropriate seat at the negotiating table and help secure the competitiveness of our small exporters abroad. The Small Manufacturers Assistance, Recovery, and Trade Act answers the call for help that I have heard too often of late from small manufacturers in this country. These improvements to existing resources within the Federal government will give these companies a better opportunity to survive in these challenging times and compete in the global economy. This bill is a critical starting point to revitalize our country's manufacturing base and create an environment that allows them to grow and create jobs again. We must help these businesses access the global marketplace through expanded exporting opportunities and assistance. I intend to work with all groups and interested parties that are committed to improving and passing this bill. There are still many needs that face our Nation's manufacturers--and this is just the beginning. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the provisions of this bill are enacted so that these companies can continue to grow and reach their full potential. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his most gracious remarks. As I said on Saturday, without his considerable efforts, determination, leadership, and willingness to work across party lines, we would not be where we are today. I want to congratulate him and commend him for the enormous leadership and support he has given to this issue as the chairman of the committee and throughout this process that has obviously been a difficult one. I had the opportunity on Saturday to elaborate on my views with respect to this conference report. I think we are on a precipice of opportunity and ushering in a new era in the Medicare Program. While this conference report does not rise to the level of everyone's aspirations and expectations when it comes to prescription drugs, I think we have to understand that this report was melding some very disparate views in very disparate bills. We must, in the final analysis, measure these results for the millions of seniors who will benefit against the benchmark of the stagnation of the status quo. The question is whether the status quo was preferable. Someone said you may have to fight a battle more than once to win it. We know how many battles we have fought on this issue over the last 5 or 6 years. How many more battles and how many more years will have to go by and at whose expense? I think we know at whose expense. It will be at the expense of the 10 million seniors who do not have prescription drug coverage currently. It will be at the expense of the 14 million seniors who are under the 150 percent of poverty level, who will now get a very generous level of support and subsidy to finance this most vital drug coverage. This conference report embraces many of the critical benchmarks that we had established previously, the ones to which Chairman Grassley was referring with respect to the tripartisan bill that should have passed last year, a year ago. I was urging the Senate to pass that legislation. We lamented the loss of that opportunity, but that time has passed. The Senate-passed bill was something we all preferred; there is no question about it. But I think we also understand the nature of conference committees. The key point to remember about this conference report is that it embraces the critical benchmarks and principles that we all championed: The prescription drug benefit would be universal, it would be voluntary, it would be permanent, it would be comprehensive, it would be affordable, there would be equal benefits across all plans, there would be a Government fallback to ensure that every senior, regardless of where they live in America, would have access to affordable drug coverage, and we would target the most assistance to those most in need. While this is not everything it could be or should be, we have to measure the results against the status quo. I would like to focus for a few moments on one of the issues that has been talked about consistently and understandably so, the privatization of Medicare. There is no question that I certainly would not support anything that would lead to the privatization of Medicare. In fact, the Senate-passed bill had nothing in the feature of a premium support proposal. Now we have to discuss what is before the conference and what has actually changed from what was in the House-passed legislation. I think it is critical that we understand the differences in what is included in this conference report. The House-passed bill sought to provide for an open-ended, permanent nationwide privatization of Medicare through an untested and untried approach known as the premium support proposal. It is certainly no secret that I was totally opposed to that approach, as well as many of us here in the Senate. But it is also critical to know what is now being applied in this conference report, and there should be no mistake that this conference report puts an end to that proposal. It puts an end to that effort to privatize. I certainly would have said the privatization approach in the House bill could have led us down the path of what the program of health care looked like prior to 1965 when Medicare was created, which was a patchwork delivery of health care to seniors in America. We don't want to go back to that; that would be a retreat. The House approach would have wild fluctuations in premiums, as we saw in the charts that were issued by CMS within the Department of Health and Human Services. There would be wild fluctuations not only between States but within States and even within congressional districts. In response to that concern, I and 43 of my colleagues wrote a letter saying that it would be totally unacceptable--not only the open-ended, permanent nationwide system that the House-passed bill included but also even the narrowed-down version of a demonstration program that would have captured 10 million seniors. That was unacceptable. I want to make clear where we are today. We have eliminated the whole approach of the House. Now, what is in this conference report as shown in this chart here today is one Federal demonstration program. That is what it is all about. Where the effort once centered on an open-ended national program that would have ultimately ended up in the wholesale undermining and destabilization of the Medicare Program, we now have a pared back demonstration project that would be limited to 46 metropolitan statistical areas; that certain criteria will be included which will determine those areas; but according to the Congressional Budget Office, based on that criteria that, in fact, it would not include more than 650,000 to 1 million seniors. What we were talking about originally in the House-passed bill was a nationwide program, but we are now back to a pared-down demonstration project, and we include criteria that would limit the size of the demonstration project to 650,000 to 1 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Also, there is protection for low income. Where the original proposal by the House had no protection for low income under 150 percent of poverty level, now they are protected as well. They will not be included in this demonstration project. It is very important to understand some of those changes. In addition, this program sunsets in 2016. It doesn't start until 2010. We obviously have time between now and then after passage of the legislation to address any further concerns. But we move the date from 2008 to 2010. There is an ending date--a sunset of 2016. No extensions are allowed without new legislative action. There are six MSAs with criteria that I mentioned earlier. Now we are not talking about open-ended, nationwide; we are not talking about even 10 million seniors. We are talking about 650,000 to 1 million. As far as any premium fluctuations, it is limited to 5 percent. Without the compounding, that would have had the net effect of having a 30-percent increase over 6 years. Now that would be phased in. I should also mention that this demonstration project is phased in starting in 2010. It is not totally in place until 2015 and 2016. In 2016, it ends. Even with the 5 percent, it will be phased in over 4 years. It represents 5 percent each year. We have made substantial changes. It is a wholesale change of what was in the House proposal. This is a limited Federal demonstration program that allows for the testing of perhaps new ideas. But nothing can be implemented--nothing can be done--until the Congress would want to address those issues based on the results from that demonstration project. That is very important for Members of this Senate to understand in terms of the differences in scope, size, implementation effect, and what it would do to the underlying program. Finally, one other additional point with respect to this demonstration project: Also in this legislation we terminated the financial incentives that are offered to private plans participating in the demonstration when it begins in 2010. I think we have to understand what the true facts are. This demonstration project will not undermine the underlying traditional Medicare Program as we know it. Obviously, it would be preferable not to have it in this legislation, but this is the essence of a compromise that is before us, and it is very limited in terms of size and scope. I think it is important for Members of the Senate to realize that. In the final analysis, I think we cannot lose this opportunity. This is an idea whose time has not only come, but it is long overdue. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, today we stand at the precipice of opportunity. Culminating a decade of work, we have before us legislation that will forever change the face of Medicare, providing every senior in America with a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare Program that will experience the largest expansion in its 38-year history. We would not have arrived at this day without the exceptional commitment by Finance Committee Chairman Grassley to advance this issue and to meld the considerable policy and political differences that have marked the development of this legislation. His efforts were nothing short of Herculean from the outset and guided us through a very challenging and contentious conference committee over the last 4 months. He, as well as Ranking Member Baucus, have remained committed to the bipartisan principles that forged the Senate legislation which garnered the support of 16 members of the Senate Finance Committee, as well as in the overall passage of the legislation last June of 76 Members of the full Senate. I also wish to recognize the outstanding leadership of the President who, in 2001, challenged Congress to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit, propounded a set of principles, and has provided strong impetus during this home stretch for Congress to complete our work and to send to his desk legislation that he can sign this year. I know firsthand from my conversations with the President that this is a cornerstone of his agenda, and absent his driving force, we would not be here today. So, too, has the majority leader redoubled his longstanding and unflagging commitment to enacting into law a bipartisan bill, moving us ever closer to that goal. And thanks to the unique confluence of his skills, his unparalleled knowledge and grasp of the issues, and his single-mindedness of purpose, more than three-quarters of the Senate came to support S. 1 that we passed last June. And in bringing that to the eve of final passage of this conference report, he has typically been respectful of and responsive to wide-ranging concerns and recommendations that have been voiced by me and others. I thank him for his leadership and for shaping this process to its ultimate and I know successful conclusion of this report. I also extend my appreciation to my colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Breaux, and Senator Jeffords, with whom I have worked so closely on a prescription drug benefit over the last 3 years. They have been stalwarts in this fight and developed the template tripartisan bill of which so many of the principles have been incorporated in this conference report. Certainly no one has more fiercely championed the cause than another colleague I have joined with in this battle in the past, Senator Kennedy, who I recognize does not support this conference report but whose early involvement and passionate policy advocacy unquestionably built momentum for this issue in Congress. Finally, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Ron Wyden, with whom I began my prescription drug coverage journey almost 6 years ago when we developed the first bipartisan prescription drug plan in Congress, which established the principles that we both believed were so crucial and essential to shaping this benefit. We reached across this political aisle because we recognized that only through a bipartisan plan could we ever see the light of day in enacting this kind of benefit as part of the Medicare Program. We joined forces, as members of the Budget Committee, to carve out the 2001 budget, believe it or not, which was a $40 billion 5-year reserve fund. Well, how far we have come from the $370 billion tripartisan plan developed last year to the historic passage of S. 1 this last June of $400 billion. But I can tell my colleagues from my own personal professional experience that Congress' journey along this road has never been easy, although it has been infinitely more arduous for America's seniors. The process has borne witness to a multiplicity of goals and philosophies across the spectrum. Some have wanted to add a drug benefit to the existing Medicare Program that would leverage purchasing power for the more than 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, while others sought to use the issue as either a vehicle for the wholesale privatization of Medicare or full scale Government-administered benefits. Some have said we are providing too great an incentive for people to enroll in private plans, while others argue we are starving those very same plans. As some have argued, the benefits provided in a particular bill are inadequate while others submit that they are, in fact, too generous and should be limited to a low-income catastrophic plan. Today, we essentially all agree we are well beyond one question: The question of need. Therefore, it is imperative that we acknowledge the reality that just as the journey thus far has been imperiled by the slings and arrows of those on all sides of this issue that we have heard this morning, it will not be easier with the passage of time, not when we are debating the creation of the largest domestic program in nominal terms ever, not when we are attempting the largest expansion in the history of the third largest Federal domestic spending program. I think it is important to emphasize the extent to which this is a sizable expansion. So for those on the other side who are talking about the fact that we are not doing enough, this is a substantial beginning. When we consider all of the significant challenges that are looming on the horizon, such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare as 77 million baby boomers will begin to retire in the year 2013, all the while we are facing record-setting deficits. We did have an optimal window for positive change just 2\1/2\ years ago when the Congressional Budget Office was projecting surpluses as far as the eye could see, about $5.6 trillion through 2011. Now we have next year's Federal deficit alone projected to be nearly $500 billion. We know the reasons: In the aftermath of September 11, the war in Iraq, a declining economy. It begins to illustrate how quickly the tide can turn; that is, how quickly the opportunities can be lost. Just think, many of the same speakers today are standing on the Senate floor arguing from different perspectives and plans on adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare Program. At that time, just a year ago, the Senate was presented with a choice between a tripartisan plan that ensured coverage would be available to all seniors--comprehensive, maximum benefit possible for low-income seniors and was a permanent part of the Medicare Program. The alternate that we were debating at the time was temporary. It would have sunset and would have statutorily restricted access to drugs because it would have been a Government-run system that would have cost close to approximately $1 trillion; although at the time, as my colleagues recall, we did not have any CBO scores, so we could not possibly know or ascertain the exact cost, but we knew that it would probably be $1 trillion and counting because it would have been a Government-run system. It would have restricted choices to seniors, and they would not have had access to the array of drugs that are available on the market today with that type of system. The benefit sunsetted after 7 years. Those who are dissatisfied with what we have before us today should fondly recall the tripartisan bill and lament its unfortunate demise because at that time we had a plan that brought together disparate interests for a very favorable benefit. That was then and this is now. We are here, and the conference report before us is the result of an attempt to balance the competing viewpoints not only among Members but the stunningly disparate views between the House-passed legislation and the Senate-passed legislation. The simple truth is, while I continue to prefer the Senate bill, as many of us do, it is this conference report upon which we will vote. After careful review, I have concluded that while it is not everything it could be, it is not everything it should be, in the end, make no mistake about it, millions of seniors will benefit over the stagnation of the status quo benefit. Margaret Thatcher once said, you may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win. Well, some of us have been fighting this battle now for nearly 6 years, and for some even longer. The bottom line is, we cannot hold hostage our seniors' futures to a political unwillingness to compromise. This bill provides us with our best available opportunity to secure for the first time a legislative foothold that honors the same basic principles that I and others have expounded upon since I first came to this issue more than 6 years ago; that in keeping with the basic tenets of Medicare, this prescription drug benefit will be universal. Everybody in the system will have access to this benefit. That is important because there were other divergent views that simply wanted a low-income and a catastrophic. We preserved the universal principle of Medicare, and that is not to be underestimated for a variety of reasons. It is comprehensive. It is a wide-ranging benefit. It is affordable, particularly for those at the low-income scale. It is voluntary participation and not mandatory. Seniors can choose to participate if they want to. It is permanent. Unlike what we were considering a year ago on this floor, it does not sunset because the costs were so prohibitive that the benefit had to be sunsetted. We have a permanent benefit, and it provides equal benefits across the spectrum of plans. That is also very important. So everybody will have access to the same benefit, regardless of what plan they choose. Like the Senate bill and the tripartisan proposal before that, it directs the most assistance toward those seniors with the lowest income and includes a reliable Government fallback mechanism of last resort to make sure that every senior, regardless of where they live in America, will have access to and the stability of the traditional Medicare Program. But they will also, regardless of where they live in America, have access to a prescription drug benefit so there will be that reliability, with a Government fallback program. In its totality, looking at this conference report, it fulfills all of those principles. That is very important. It is something we cannot overlook. It cannot be minimized. It cannot be denigrating. Those principles have been captured in this legislation, irrespective of all the other disparate views that come in between. Those principles framework this conference report. Those were the principles that were in the Senate-passed legislation. Now let's look at some of the individual components of the package before us. We should be mindful of how we arrived at this destination because we have to put this conference report in context, not only for why we are here today but what happened previously, what happened last year, what happened 4 years ago, what happened 6 years ago, because it illustrates the long journey we have taken down this road and what has happened in the House--what has happened in America, in terms of the rising cost of prescription drugs and the impact on seniors. As this Senate passed a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, those 76 votes I was referring to earlier, last June, the House passed legislation with the most razor-thin margin of just 1 vote--just 1 vote. We all witnessed what unfolded this morning in the early morning hours when the House with a 5-vote margin passed the conference report. Obviously, it reflects some very different views between both Chambers, among philosophies, among regions of the country. We cannot overlook that, in terms of what do we do now. What can we ever potentially do in the future that will be even better? We see the results, obviously, in those differences. Some have referred to the benefit that is available in this conference report. I think it is important to talk about some of those issues. We see the result, obviously, in the starkest terms reflecting different philosophies in the nature of the benefit that ultimately was designed by the conference committee to sort of split the differences, because that is what conference committees are all about. No, it can't be all one way or the other. You have to sort of go back and forth, to figure out what can you do to design an equilibrium of thought. It has to be carefully calibrated so that you do not compromise what you believe but it advances the legislative agenda on your ultimate goal, in this case designing a prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare program. So let's look at the underlying benefit when it comes to the drug plan. It includes aspects that are modeled after each bill. The deductible was set at the House lower level of $250. We had $275. And the conferees worked to improve this proposal by offering a benefit that had an actuarial value that was higher than the benefit from both bills. However, in providing these improvements, concessions had to be made. In doing so, the Senate's benefit cap that was referred to by other speakers--we had a $4,500 benefit cap, a spending threshold--that was lowered to $2,250. So while they got a better actuarial benefit for all beneficiaries, the spending cap was lowered to $2,250. But in the same respect, the cost sharing provided under this cap was lowered from 50 percent to 25 percent that was in the legislation in the Senate bill. So we had a cost sharing between Government and the beneficiary that was 50-50. But in the conference report, now the Government will provide the 75 percent and the beneficiary 25. So that is an improvement. We see it is not all perfect, but again this benefit represents the art of the compromise. You have to think again, is this better than the status quo? I think there is no question that it is because millions will stand to gain, No. 1, getting a benefit; No. 2, getting generous assistance on the low end of the income scale. But everybody stands to gain who participates in the Medicare Program, who wants to participate in accessing this prescription drug plan. As I see it, this conference report will at least get the Federal foot in the door in providing a significant level of assistance to one out of four Americans who, right now, don't have any assistance. They don't have any assistance currently. If you look at the graphs, a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries have nothing. So are we saying this is not better than that status quo? We also design a benefit for all seniors with a $35 monthly premium that will save 50 percent on their cost of prescription drugs. So, for example, a senior who spends $3,600 on prescription drugs will realize a saving of $1,714 annually. Then as I mentioned earlier about the lowest income and the assistance they will receive under this conference report, which was in keeping with the principles of the Senate-passed legislation for which we received 76 votes, we find that the conferees utilized the model that was established in the Senate bill. Most critically, no senior who qualifies for one of the low-income categories will experience a gap in coverage--none. So for those under the 150 percent of poverty level, they will experience no gap in coverage. It also means in Maine, for example, there will be 93,450 Medicare beneficiaries, more than 40 percent of the overall Medicare population, who will receive a generous benefit with no gap in coverage, not to mention that it will be at a high level of assistance--up to 150 percent, with minimal copays, in some instances--most instances, no deductible, no premiums, and, as we know, a sliding scale on the monthly premium of 135 to 150.

Ms. SNOWE. I did not know there was a time restriction, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE. While the Senate has extended this to a greater number of seniors, unlike the Senate bill, this proposal ensures all seniors, even the so-called dual eligibles, will be part of this conference report. That certainly benefits my beneficiaries in Maine but 6 million nationally. Not only do seniors deserve a subsidy to help make prescription drugs more affordable, they should also have the benefit of choice when it comes to the coverage they purchase. Seniors should not be limited in their options for coverage, so that we ensure all seniors have a choice of at least two privately delivered drug plans. Options are important. They will have choice among prescription drugs as well. That is critically important because the choices will be there, and they will also have the benefit of a fallback to ensure this coverage and those options are available nationwide. Finally, I want to get to the one remaining point because of time limitations. We have heard so much about the privatization of Medicare, what this would do. This conference report unquestionably represents the end of the House bill's open-ended efforts to move Medicare towards a national privatized system through an untested, untried policy known as premium support that could have led to a patchwork quilt of uneven health care delivery that existed prior to the creation of the Medicare Program in 1965. This approach would have fostered wild fluctuations in the premiums for the traditional Medicare Program whereas, incredibly, Medicare now provides all seniors with the same benefit for the same premium. Under this proposal, premium variations would have occurred not just from State to State but within a State and even within congressional districts across the country. There are many illustrations of that point. For example, from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, they indicated that in Miami, FL, they would pay $2,100 a year for the traditional Medicare Program compared to $900 to seniors who would pay that in Osceola, FL, for the same benefit. When you compare North Carolina to variations from State to State, it would have been extreme. For example, they would have paid $750 for the traditional Medicare; whereas, in Florida they were paying $2,100 for that same benefit but their premium, obviously, would be much higher. In response to a letter that 43 colleagues and I sent--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, along with an editorial on this subject.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in that letter, we expressed our strong opposition to this ideological venture. It is important to know that significant changes were made to transform the full-scale national premium support proposal into a limited bone fide demonstration project. That is important to know. I have it here on the chart. I hope it is something I can get back to on Monday. It is important to know how far we have come from where it was. The open-ended privatization of the Medicare Program, starting in 2010, would have been a wholesale privatization which didn't offer any seniors any protection, regardless if they were low income, from premium fluctuations. Because it would open it up to competition in the private sector, the conferees shifted it to a bone fide limited demonstration project. We moved from that open-ended privatization to the first proposal in the conference report which provided protection for low-income seniors for any type of open-ended privatization. They also moved to a demonstration project so it wouldn't be national--it wouldn't be permanent for one region in four metropolitan statistical areas. We said that is not enough; that is too open ended. We finally were able to reduce it to six MSAs with limited criteria. That limited the number of people who would participate in those six metropolitan areas. It is very important, because what we had before was nationwide and open ended, which would have been a frontal assault on the traditional Medicare Program as we know it with an untested and untried approach where we don't have a scintilla of evidence whether it would work. Through our efforts and through the responsiveness of the leader and Chairman Grassley, we were able to move from a nationwide approach to six metropolitan areas which includes criteria that GPO says will limit this to 1 million--anywhere from 650,000 seniors to 1 million seniors-- and it would be sunset by the year 2016. It would kick in in the year 2010. It will be phased in and will be sunset in 2016. That is important. What is also important is the fluctuation in premiums, which I was referring to earlier. That is critical because that won't occur. Originally, there was no protection, with huge, wide variances, depending on where you live in America, and subject to undermining and destabilizing of the Medicare Program. The Congress agreed originally to fluctuations which would vary from 10 percent per year compounded. We were able to weigh in. Finally, what we have here is a reduction in the level of allowing increases in premiums to 5 percent, removing the compounding mechanism that originally would have had a total cumulative impact of 30 percent over 6 years. We have come a long way from where this proposal was in the House that would have undermined the traditional fee for service. When I hear speakers on the other side of the political aisle talking about privatization, I think it is important to stick to the facts of what we now have. This is a sea change from the original initial proposal that was in the House-passed legislation. Obviously, the Senate had nothing referring to this premium support program. What we have now is a limitation to one Federal demonstration project for a legitimate avenue to experimenting with new options for potentially improving upon the Medicare Program in the future. But we cannot do it unless we absolutely have assurances that it will work. That is what demonstration projects and programs are all about. We learn from them. I didn't want to use seniors as an experiment on the road to learning. That is why this is very limited. Now it is no longer nationwide. It is down to six MSAs. It includes selection criteria that the Congressional Budget Office says will limit the number of impacted seniors to 1 million. It also offers protection even in that demonstration project to seniors under 50 percent of poverty level or below. That is very important to note. We are essentially holding seniors harmless even in those demonstration projects. But, again, this is no longer what it was in the House-passed legislation. I think it is important that we understand that. This is a means to evaluate anything in the future that may be potentially an improvement to strengthen the future of the Medicare Program. But, obviously, we don't want to use open-ended programs at the expense of the traditional program that has worked so well. Ironically, in all of this, that is why this was not viable to what was in the House-passed bill--that the traditional Medicare Program worked. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office told us it would not achieve the savings that the proponents were suggesting. It would only save $1 billion potentially, and it could threaten the underlying traditional fee for service. Where would the seniors be? Where they were prior to 1965 where a lot of working Americans are--barely being able to have access to any type of health care, let alone health care with consistency, or where the costs were so prohibitive they were restricted to catastrophic coverage. Why do we want to assign that problem to our seniors until we know what could work in the future? I can tell you that there is not one scintilla of evidence in the public sector or in the private sector that would tell you that any premium support plan would work at this point. That is why it should be confined to a limited demonstration project of no more than 1 million-- it could be as low as 650,000--to learn what will work to potentially improve. It sunsets, we will learn from it, and decide what it can do for the future. I urge my colleagues to take a very careful look at this legislation because this is a transformational moment in history, and there will be no going back. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, just consider for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that, while even a developing country like China is transforming, America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy? We should keep in mind that China is expected to pass the United States in the next 10 years as the largest emitter of manmade carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas that the vast majority of international scientists believe is causing global climate change. And, it is interesting to note that there is not one mention of climate change in the entire conference report. Not one reference in a report of over 1,000 pages that is supposed to shape the Nation's energy policy for the 21st century. Last year's Energy bill--which I remind my colleagues is the bill the Senate actually passed this year--had at least three different titles addressing climate change, including research on abrupt climate change. Also, the administration's National Energy Policy of May, 2001, stated, ``Energy-related activities are the primary sources of U.S. man-made greenhouse gas emissions representing about 85 percent of the U.S. man- made total carbon-equivalent emissions in 1998.'' Other grave concerns I have involve provisions in the report that will threaten coastal and marine environments and lead to further degradation of our oceans. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I am troubled by the ramifications of these provisions, as I strongly believe that any changes to U.S. marine policy should only be developed with contributions and oversight of the subcommittee. For example, under section 321 of title III, the bill grants sole authority for all energy-related projects in the Outer Continental Shelf to the Secretary of the Interior. Currently, protecting these ecosystems is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. This section does not suggest that the Department of the Interior should even consult with Commerce. Two other sections in this bill would limit the ability of the Secretary of Commerce and coastal States to guide, plan, and regulate activities that affect coastal and ocean resources and that occur in offshore areas-- a right they currently have under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Further, section 325 would shorten the timeframes for submitting information and appealing the permitting decisions for offshore activities that are inconsistent with States' coastal management plans--regardless of the quality or quantity of information received. Another section, section 330 would limit all appeals or reviews of offshore energy action to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission record. I believe that the Secretary of Commerce should have the discretion to develop a record that is relevant to issues on appeal. These provisions are inconsistent with the administration's proposed rule amending the appeals processes, and they conflict with the goals and purposes of the Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization bill, S. 241, I introduced last January. Moreover, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established and appointed by President Bush pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, is poised to present its recommendations to Congress on offshore energy and other ocean-related issues. All of these provisions have serious consequences for marine environmental health, and they should not be hastily adopted without the thoughtful input of the Commerce Committee, the administration, and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Moving from our oceans to our air, there are other disturbing provisions in the conference report that have been raised by many of my colleagues. For instance, the report contains a provision delaying clean air protections for millions of Americans, leading to thousands of additional asthma attacks--and that is of particular concern to me as my State of Maine leads the Nation in per capita cases of asthma. Also, I am disappointed that the conference report contains no renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, to raise the amount of renewable energy as a source of electricity nationwide by increasing the percentage of electricity produced from wind, solar, geothermal, incremental hydropower, and clean biomass that produces electricity from burning forest waste. The conference report does not ban MTBE that is polluting our ground water for another decade rather than the 4 years in the Senate bill, while at the same time virtually dismissing pending lawsuits states already have filed against MTBE producers for cleanup. State officials in Maine do not approve of extending the ban on MTBE or the fact that the heavy financial burden of cleanup will shift to the communities and water users because MTBE producers receive a safe harbor from lawsuits in the report. For hydropower, the conference report provisions give the last say for hydropower permits to industry and does not give equal weight to the agencies/stakeholders process that has worked so well in Maine for reaching consensus on hydropower decisions, especially for dam removals. On electricity reliability, the report holds up FERC's ability to go forward with its standard market design for regional transmission organizations--or RTOs except on a voluntary basis, until 2007. A voluntary only program, however, does not spur the capital needed right now for increased electricity transmission in New England, for instance. I hope my colleagues are aware that the New England RTO kept the great majority of New England's electricity grid working and the lights on during the blackout of August of 2003. Actually, the only component of the electricity title that effectively addresses the basic causes of the 2003 blackout is the establishment of electric reliability organizations that would enforce reliability standards through improved communication standards and would be overseen by FERC. Regarding consumer protections, the conference report repeals PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, that currently protects consumers from higher electricity prices. However, the conference report contains little language that ensures that consumers are shielded from higher bills resulting from, for instance, large electricity and gas convergence mergers. Public Power, co-ops and municipalities, who represent 25 percent of the industry, are especially vulnerable to the lack of adequate consumer protections in the report. Also, the conferees stripped the tradable tax credits for Public Power that I and others had included in the Senate Finance Committee amendment. These tradable tax credits would have allowed Public Power to invest in renewable energy and assist them in decreasing their CO2 emissions by moving away from burning as much coal as they currently do. On fiscal policy, I do not believe the conference report shows fiscal restraint or uses taxpayer dollars wisely. The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution calls for approximately $15.5 billion to be spent on tax incentives, and the Senate Finance Committee stayed within this budget blueprint. The conference report contains $24 billion in tax incentives plus another $5.4 billion in spending and with no offsets. One of my concerns is that important tax incentives that appeared in the Senate and House Energy bills over the past 2 years have not been included in the conference. Where they have been included, they are so pared back that I question whether the various industries will take advantage of the smaller energy efficiency tax incentives provided, particularly for the construction, lighting, and heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, or HVAC, for commercial buildings. Gone are provisions for tax incentives to promote the use of more efficient air-conditioners, even though 70 percent of the energy demand in peak periods is for air-conditioners, and that was a significant factor in last August's major blackout in the Northeast. The lack of these provisions that could be instrumental in the short term for energy savings simply does not move the Nation's energy policy forward into this century. The knowledge of alternative and renewable sources has been known for over a century as the simple principle of fuel cells --combining hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and pure water--and the photovoltaic principle behind the solar power of the sun, were both discussed in 1839--164 years ago. We should ask ourselves why, instead of our daily diet of approximately 19 million barrels of oil a day, we are not also choosing to bolster even more the development of these sources of renewable energy for our consumption and to grow our economy. Imagine automobiles driven by fuel cells--our U.S. auto manufacturers and the Federal Government are beginning to invest in fuel cells. Imagine businesses and homes having their own free-standing and reliable fuel cells--one of the cleanest means of generating electricity--that Senator Lieberman and I have promoted. Fuel cells can provide electricity instead of our current vast, centralized fossil fuel systems that make our air dirtier and less healthy, causing us to spend millions more on health care each year. We need to be more serious about promoting these technologies. I do not believe that the Energy conference report before us sets the Nation on the right course for the future and well being of the Nation, and I will, regretfully, vote against the conference report with the hope that Congress can continue working toward a more meaningful, secure, and balanced energy-efficient future for the Nation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as I rise to speak to the issue of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, I want to first recognize the efforts of Energy Committee Chairman Domenici and Finance Committee Chairman Grassley for the extraordinary time and effort they have devoted to developing a national energy policy for a 21st century America. Theirs was an arduous task in addressing not only political differences with the bill but also regional ones as well. So I thank them for their work. This has certainly been a long road. Congress has been debating and voting on a number of energy issues over the past two Congresses, one when under Democratic control and one under Republican leadership. There have been a myriad of issues to consider as we have attempted to shape appropriate policy, and to help increase the public's awareness of the benefits to our health and national security in shifting from foreign fossil fuel imports toward renewable, efficient, and alternative energy sources and manufacturing technologies. Yes, it has been a long, hard road but this conference report simply does not put us on the right road to accomplish these goals for the good of the Nation. We have yet to find that new direction, but we must keep seeking it. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.'' The conferees had the opportunity to raise the bar for the Nation's future domestic energy systems through new energy policies, through the creation of tax incentives for available and developing technologies, and most of all for incentivizing the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. But, this goal, in my opinion, has not been reached in the Energy conference report before us. Since we started to develop new strategies for the Nation's energy policy for the 21st century, we have had to undergo a fundamental reassessment of our energy infrastructure in the aftermath of the horrific events of 9/11 and the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. We realize now more than ever that we must reduce our vulnerabilities to terrorism with more secure, localized, and reliably distributed energy delivery systems rather than relying solely on our current centralized infrastructure of pipelines, refineries, powerplants, patchwork of electricity grids, and oil tankers berthed in our harbors. The United States simply cannot afford to continue to spend at least $57 billion a year buying oil from the Middle East and continue its upward trend of fossil fuel usage. The entire world--particularly the developing and fast-growing nations of China, India, and Brazil--desperately needs access to clean, low-cost, energy-efficient and renewable resources. The key is to make the best alternate energy systems that are competitive with today's nonrenewable sources of energy so that they can be developed and used both at home and sold abroad. Since 2000, I have been proud to have been a member of the Finance Committee where I worked to develop responsible tax incentives to increase the efficiencies of the electricity we produce, the vehicles we drive, the appliances we use, the homes in which we live, and, in turn, enhance the competitiveness of our domestic manufacturers. Our task is to incentivize, through the Tax Code, our U.S. manufacturers to develop and employ the most promising and cost-effective technologies to the U.S. and global marketplace with all due speed. Unfortunately, the conference report increases oil and gas tax credits to $11.9 billion while conservation and energy efficiency incentives were decreased to $1.5 billion. An equitable balance has not been achieved nor is it a step forward. We need to expand the mix of the country's energy sources with the realization that power from nuclear and fossil fuels will continue to be a large part of the energy basket in the next decades--but, at the same time, we must encourage safer, cleaner and decentralized sources as well. The conference report before us simply does not progress far enough in this direction, instead maintaining more of a ``business as usual'' approach to the Nation's energy future. One of my greatest disappointments is the absence of provisions from the Feinstein-Snowe SUV loophole legislation that would have phased-in changes in CAFE standards requirements in four, attainable stages that would have brought the standards for SUVs in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years. Closing this loophole alone would save our nation approximately 1 million barrels of oil, or fully 10 percent of the oil our vehicles consume on a daily basis. Right now, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions--the major greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, I cannot fathom why we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars. Like Senator Feinstein and I, other nations have realized the value of these changes. Even China--a developing country--has great concerns about its increased reliance on foreign oil, so much so that Chinese officials say they have to save energy--and how are they prepared to accomplish this? By implementing more stringent CAFE standards for new vehicles--including those manufactured in the United States--in their country than we currently have in the United States or in this conference report. How ironic that China is more progressive than the United States in their attempts to save energy and decrease dependency in oil imports at the same time that the United States overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980. According to a November 18 New York Times article, vehicles made by Western automakers that do not meet the standards the Chinese Government has drafted may have to be modified to get better gas mileage before the first phase of the new rules becomes effective in July of 2005. I ask unanimous consent to print the November 18 article in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1152, the U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003 that reestablishes the position of U.S. Fire Administrator and incorporates the provisions of S. 321, the Firefighting and Research Coordination Act which I cosponsored. As we prepare to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration for the first time since fiscal year 2000, we do so in a vastly changed environment. In that time, the term ``first responder'' has entered the lexicon and is now a part of our national consciousness. Americans have always understood and were assured that in the event of an emergency, units of the U.S. Fire Service would respond, render aid to the suffering, and protect our property and resources. However, we had gotten to the point that we were taking the Fire Service for granted. All of that changed, as did many things in America, on September 11, 2001. On that day, we watched in horror as those tragic events unfolded in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and we saw over and over the bravery and sacrifice of those proud men and women of the United States Fire Service as they worked tirelessly and without regard for their personal safety to help their fellow Americans. On that day, all of America once again became aware of those who live in our midst--our neighbors, our friends, and our relatives--who daily stand on the front lines to protect us from harm. Since that time we embarked on an immense reorganization of the Government as we stood up the Department of Homeland Security. There were many views about the relative pros and cons of such a Department and which Federal agencies should be included in the Department and which were better left outside. This proposal will reauthorize just one agency within that organization, the United States Fire Administration. Most importantly, it will reestablish the U.S. Fire Administrator position as a separate entity appointed by the President and ensure that it is not subsumed as the Director of the Preparedness Division within the Department of Homeland Security. In testimony earlier this year before the Commerce Committee, we heard from representatives from the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Fire Protection Association and the National Volunteer Fire Council who were united in their call to reestablish the position of United States Fire Administrator because of the importance of having an independent voice within the administration. As one example, they cited the need to have the Fire Administrator oversee the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act grants program to ensure funds were properly focused on the entirety of the fire service mission and not expended on strictly counterterrorism efforts. I have always believed the FIRE grant program was one of the most successful competitive grant programs run by the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2002, my home State of Maine received a little over $4.3 million in grants, most of which went to the smallest communities in the State. In fact, the largest single recipient was the smaller South Berwick Fire Department, not the larger Portland or Bangor departments. I have the honor and privilege of representing the Great State of Maine which has 5,300 miles of coastline and a long and proud maritime tradition. I am particularly pleased that this measure amends the FIRE grant process to include maritime firefighting so that those responsible for the protection of our ports and vessels at sea have the opportunity to acquire the tools and equipment they need to accomplish that mission. Beyond simply directing the FIRE Act program, the bill also authorizes the U.S. Fire Administrator, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Inter-Agency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability, the Directorate of the Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, national voluntary consensus standards development organizations and other interested parties, to develop the measurement techniques and testing methodologies to assess new firefighting technologies. Such standards would support the development of voluntary consensus standards for evaluating the performance and compatibility of new firefighting technology, including thermal imaging equipment; early warning fire detection devices; personal protection equipment for firefighting; victim detection equipment; and devices to locate firefighters in buildings. The U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act also ensures that equipment purchased under the FIRE grant program will be required to meet or exceed those applicable voluntary consensus standards unless waived by the Fire Administrator in accordance with very specific guidelines. Furthermore, under this legislation, the Fire Administrator is tasked with acting as a resource for State and local governments in developing mutual aid plans, updating the Federal Response Plan, and reporting on the need for a strategy for deploying volunteers, including a national credentialing system. New training programs at the National Fire Academy to improve tactics for using new firefighting technology and responding to terrorist attacks will be authorized under this measure. I want to stress that the report on our strategic needs for the deployment of volunteers and emergency response personnel would be required within 90 days of enactment and a report describing plans to revise the Federal Response Plan to address responses to terrorism attacks would be due 180 days after enactment. These times are critical because it is imperative we complete the planning our national response so the Fire Service can more effectively protect our fellow citizens. Successful implementation of those plans require that our firefighters undergo comprehensive training to understand and use the Federal Response Plan, to use new technologies and to develop the strategies and tactics to fight fires wherever they occur--in buildings, in forests or on the water. This legislation also encourages the Superintendent of the National Fire Academy to coordinate with Federal, State and local agencies to develop the curricula to accomplish that training and ensure that it is available in all geographic regions to both career and volunteer firefighters. In conclusion, I would just say that this reauthorization of the Fire Administration is vital to those who risk their own lives every day in this nation to protect our citizens and our resources. It provides them with the leadership, the tools, the planning and the training they need to effectively accomplish that mission and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this measure.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of the Small Business Administration Continuation Act of 2003. This bill provides a short-term extension of the Small Business Administration and all of its programs. In particular, it ensures the continuation of the SBA's 504 loan program, Small Business Investment Company program, and other activities currently conducted by the SBA, which must be extended before Congress adjourns this year. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, in supporting this bill. 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 and the SBIC program. The reauthorization bill will continue the SBA's role in assisting American small business to thrive and grow, through the agency's lending, entrepreneurial development, and government contracting 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, for the years covered by the reauthorization bill, an estimated 3.34 million jobs will be created or retained as a result of the reauthorization programs. While the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act provides for the continuation of these programs, the other body has been delayed in its consideration of legislation to reauthorize the agency. The SBA's programs that rely on appropriations will be continued once the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations legislation for Fiscal Year 2004 is enacted. However, several of the SBA's programs and activities, like the 504 loan and SBIC programs, 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. With small businesses comprising 99.7 percent of all businesses in the United States, employing 57 percent of the total private-sector workforce, and accounting for approximately 40 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, they deserve nothing less! 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 four 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 SBIC Program utilizes private venture capital, with matching Federal funds, to provide financing to small businesses, many of which have found it difficult to obtain financing from traditional venture capital firms, both because of the businesses' small size and because of difficult economic trends. Since the start of Fiscal Year 1999, small business investment companies supported by the SBA have made more than 15,800 investments in small businesses, with a total value of $16.9 billion. This critical long-term or ``patient'' capital for small businesses has led to the creation and retention of approximately 481,000 jobs during this period. Both of these programs are critical to our efforts to provide necessary capital to small businesses so that those businesses can provide the jobs and the growth to improve the Nation's economy. In addition, both of these programs rely on fees charged to the program participants, rather than on Federal appropriations, to fund their operation. Because neither program requires any 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. Currently, the authorization for these fees has been temporarily extended under the present continuing resolution. With the close of the First Session of the 108th Congress rapidly approaching, we must act now to ensure that the SBA and its programs are continued. The bill before us achieves that goal by extending the authorization for the agency and its programs through March 15, 2004. That will provide ample 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 and SBIC programs, 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. In summary, the Small Business Administration Continuation Act of 2003 is a straight extension of the authorization for the Small Business Administration, SBA, and its programs at their FY 2003 levels through March 15, 2003. Currently, the SBA and its programs are operating under the provisions of the Continuing Resolution. The bill also increases the fee authorization for the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program so that it can continue operating at a zero subsidy rate for 2004. The SBIC fee level was increased in the last Continuing Resolution and that increase is merely continued in this bill to avoid statutory interpretation problems. While the Senate has passed a 3-year reauthorization of the SBA, S. 1375, the House has not completed work on its reauthorization bill. In order to provide time for the House to act and the bills to be reconciled, this bill extends the SBA's authorization on a short-term basis so the agency can continue providing its critical lending, entrepreneurial development, and government contracting programs to the Nation's small businesses. (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 today to speak briefly on the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization conference report. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in bringing this bill to final passage. Of course, I must also recognize the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege of working with them on the Committee for several years and I can attest that each year they work together tirelessly to pass the defense authorization bill because they understand how absolutely vital this legislation is to the effectiveness and well-being of our armed forces. For that matter, let me also recognize every Senator on the committee for their efforts because this conference report authorizes the equipment, the training, and the operational funds necessary to support our troops who are right now operating across the globe to make our Nation and the world more secure. It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at home and abroad and, of course, risk their lives every day to restore freedom and prosperity to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to those who have served honorably by phasing-in for those with a service connected disability rated at 50 percent or more the same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee--the ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements without offsets. There is much work to be done before we achieve the full equity of concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees and I will continue to support these efforts until we finally achieve the goal of full concurrent receipt. This $401.3 billion dollar authorization provides $74.3 billion for the critical procurement accounts. In particular, this bill makes some significant strides by providing almost $12 billion in an area that is critical to the security of the Nation--our shipbuilding capacity. It has become more and more apparent that as we engage the forces of terrorism around the world we have become increasingly dependent on the ability of our Navy to not only deliver troops and munitions to the fight, but to act as the sea base from which our forces can operate without restrictions virtually anywhere in the world. Yet, as a former Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310- ship Navy including 116 surface combatants--cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Partly because of continuing concerns about the Navy's uncertainty regarding plans for future surface combatants, last year's authorization directed that the Navy notify Congress should the number of active and reserve surface combatant ships drop below 116 and provide an operational risk assessment based on that number. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant fleet had fallen to 106 ships and in the latest report submitted by the Navy in June of this year, the Navy notified Congress that by the end of fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force of surface combatants to 103 ships. According to the Navy, accelerating the decommissioning of Ticonderoga- and Spruance-class ships will free up funds for next-generation destroyer programs without appreciably raising the operational risk level to our Naval forces because they are ``significantly less capable than the more modern and survivable AEGIS- equipped DDG-51 class ships that are replacing them.'' Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.2 billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on terrorism. Moreover, it adds $20 million for the DDG Modernization program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies that will dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet and mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older ships. Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide technologies to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance their training opportunities and increase the survivability of their ships. In 2005, the Navy will complete the DDG-51 acquisition program, and the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are being funded in the research and development accounts. Although this authorization provides $1 billion for the continued development of the DD(X) and $183 million for the continued development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts, there is a looming gap in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account for surface combatants. Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding industrial base. This trend not only applies to surface combatants but to our attack submarine fleet as well. Although the Navy and the Department of Defense has established a requirement of 55 attack submarines, the current inventory numbers only 54 of those ships. To compound the problem, the Navy continues to place submarines such as the USS Jacksonville on the list of submarines to be inactivated rather than funding their refueling as a solution to this force structure gap. The Senate wisely added $248 million for the refueling of that submarine and I am pleased this report sustained that effort. I am also disappointed that the conferees have included Section 319 in this bill, on Military Readiness and Marine Mammal Protection. Under the Senate Rules, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has jurisdiction over issues relating to marine mammals, including authorizations for and oversight of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which I chair, intends to work on reauthorizing the MMPA in its entirety this Congress, and we have held a hearing and numerous briefings with all concerned marine mammal interests, including the Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By including Section 319 in this bill, the conferees have disregarded our jurisdiction and work on the reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and they have seriously altered marine mammal policy in the United States. I have serious concerns about their changes to the definition of harassment, the Department of Defense exemption from the MMPA, and the incidental takings language. Changes of this magnitude on behalf of the military requires oversight and review by the Commerce Committee, and the implications of these changes for other regulated parties and interested MMPA stakeholders must be fully understood. Our Subcommittee will address these changes and many other marine mammal conservation issues as we proceed with full, comprehensive reauthorization of the MMPA. Importantly, this bill sets aside $63.4 billion in the research and development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops will use to maintain their technological superiority over their adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11 billion for the critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the ``seed corn'' of our future military capability. Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine system has been on the forefront of the development of chemical and biological sensors and decontamination systems. The bill provides them with $1 million this year to begin the development of an environmentally-friendly photo-catalytic decontamination agent that holds much promise for the safe and rapid decontamination of exposed personnel as well as for the remediation of chemical agent and manufacturing and storage facilities. In addition, this bill also authorizes $4 million for continued research at the University of Maine into the structural reliability of fiber-reinforced polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help define and ultimately control the significant property variations found in composite plates used in Navy ship construction. One of the hallmarks of the Department of Defense is the interwoven nature of the military and civilian personnel who work together as our national security team. Civilian workers at DOD work alongside their military counterparts every single day, sometimes in the most hazardous conditions. For example, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME, workers hold a memorial service every year for the gallant crew of the USS Thresher, lost at sea in April, 1963 with 112 sailors and 17 fellow civilian workers from the shipyard. The civilian workers at the Department of Defense work and sacrifice to keep this Nation secure and we should recognize their dedication and professionalism. While there are many positive provisions included in the bill, I am disappointed that the conferees did not include all of the personnel reform provisions put forward by my colleagues, Senators Collins, Levin, Sununu and Voinovich, instead adopting many of the provisions put forth by the Department. The current civilian personnel system was established over a period of decades in order to protect the rights of the civilian worker in areas such as merit-based hiring practices, equal pay for equal work, appeals of adverse personnel actions and collective bargaining. As the new National Security Personnel System established in this bill is set in place, the Department must keep faith with its civilian employees and provide for third-party appeals, third-party dispute resolution as part of the collective bargaining process and a credible, transparent performance rating system. I will be watching closely as the Department institutes this new personnel system to ensure that Federal employee's rights are not abrogated and that the highly-skilled civilian defense workforce can continue to stand arm-in-arm with their military counterparts to provide for the security of our Nation. Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percent for all military personnel and once again provides an additional targeted pay raise of 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for the senior non-commissioned officers and mid-career personnel who are the backbone of our military. There are also a number of provisions that will directly aid the families of service members such as an increase in the family separation allowance from $100 to $250 per month and an increase in the special pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger from $150 to $225 per month. This authorization rightly recognizes that our reservists and National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such as medical care and special pay rates. For example, reservists and their families will now be provided access to enhanced TRICARE coverage including non-mobilized reservists and their families who are either unemployed or whose employers do not provide health coverage. In addition, reservists and their families will be granted the same commissary privileges as active duty personnel. Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the quality of life they have earned and security for their families. I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass this conference report unanimously because in a year when our Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can do no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I first introduced in the 105th Congress to address a serious health concern for veterans--specifically, the health threat posed by the Hepatitis C virus. This legislation, the Veterans Hepatitis C Treatment bill, establishes a presumption of service connection for veterans with hepatitis C, provided that certain conditions are met. This bill will enable veterans who contracted Hepatitis C in military service to receive treatment for this condition by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent hemodialysis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease during a period of service; or veterans working in a health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment for Hepatitis C at VA facilities. I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were exposed to Hepatitis C in service, and are now suffering from liver disease and other diseases caused by exposure to this virus. I am troubled that many ``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that Hepatitis was not isolated until 1989 and could not be tested for until 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting the virus. For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer and death. And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and so they don't get treatment until it's too late. It has been estimated that up to 70 percent of the approximately four million Americans with Hepatitis C are unaware that they carry the virus. For those who know they're infected, the prognosis is promising--some estimates indicate that 50 percent may have the virus eradicated. Vietnam veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that they have liver disease likely caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA because they must first establish a service connection for their condition--a standard that is virtually impossible to meet. My colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were likely exposed to this virus. Medical advances during the Vietnam War included rapid evacuation, improved transfusion and high rates of U.S. casualty survival in an era prior to Hepatitis C screening of the blood supply. Blood transfusion is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care providers who served in combat, where universal precautions and rubber glove use are often absent, were likely at increased risk as well, and may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated. Researchers have discovered that some blood sent from the U.S. was infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, believe that many veterans were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion or from working as a medic around combat injuries. Yet, veterans cannot establish a service connection because frequently there were no symptoms when they were originally infected while in Vietnam. In addition, while medical records may show a short bout of Hepatitis, Hepatitis C was not known at the time and there was not a test available to detect the virus. The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch-22 situation: the VA will not provide treatment unless a service connection has been established, but the veterans cannot prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to detect the virus didn't exist. Without legislative authority to treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C while in the service will not receive VA health care testing or treatment. I believe that in the long run we will actually save money by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-state liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within and outside of the medical profession, has said: ``In some studies of veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, half of the veterans have tested positive for [the Hepatitis C virus]. Some of those veterans may have left the military with the [Hepatitis C virus], while others may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we need to detect and treat [Hepatitis C] if we are to head off very high rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the next decade.'' Some may argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work cut out for us, and further study should be done. However, there is already a substantial body of research which has firmly established that veterans have a higher incidence of Hepatitis C when compared to non-veterans. We should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they deserve while further research is being conducted. Today is Veteran's Day and we will all take time to honor the sacrifices that these brave men and women have made to defend the freedom of this country and ensure others could live in peace. These veterans shouldn't be asked to fight another battle for the benefits and respect that they have earned. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in addressing the health concerns of this Nation's veterans, and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the VA-HUD appropriators, and veterans groups to meet this emerging challenge.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I first introduced in the 105th Congress to address a serious health concern for veterans--specifically, the health threat posed by the Hepatitis C virus. This legislation, the Veterans Hepatitis C Treatment bill, establishes a presumption of service connection for veterans with hepatitis C, provided that certain conditions are met. This bill will enable veterans who contracted Hepatitis C in military service to receive treatment for this condition by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent hemodialysis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease during a period of service; or veterans working in a health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment for Hepatitis C at VA facilities. I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were exposed to Hepatitis C in service, and are now suffering from liver disease and other diseases caused by exposure to this virus. I am troubled that many ``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that Hepatitis was not isolated until 1989 and could not be tested for until 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting the virus. For many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer and death. And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and so they don't get treatment until it's too late. It has been estimated that up to 70 percent of the approximately four million Americans with Hepatitis C are unaware that they carry the virus. For those who know they're infected, the prognosis is promising--some estimates indicate that 50 percent may have the virus eradicated. Vietnam veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that they have liver disease likely caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA because they must first establish a service connection for their condition--a standard that is virtually impossible to meet. My colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were likely exposed to this virus. Medical advances during the Vietnam War included rapid evacuation, improved transfusion and high rates of U.S. casualty survival in an era prior to Hepatitis C screening of the blood supply. Blood transfusion is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care providers who served in combat, where universal precautions and rubber glove use are often absent, were likely at increased risk as well, and may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated. Researchers have discovered that some blood sent from the U.S. was infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, believe that many veterans were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion or from working as a medic around combat injuries. Yet, veterans cannot establish a service connection because frequently there were no symptoms when they were originally infected while in Vietnam. In addition, while medical records may show a short bout of Hepatitis, Hepatitis C was not known at the time and there was not a test available to detect the virus. The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch-22 situation: the VA will not provide treatment unless a service connection has been established, but the veterans cannot prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to detect the virus didn't exist. Without legislative authority to treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C while in the service will not receive VA health care testing or treatment. I believe that in the long run we will actually save money by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-state liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within and outside of the medical profession, has said: ``In some studies of veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, half of the veterans have tested positive for [the Hepatitis C virus]. Some of those veterans may have left the military with the [Hepatitis C virus], while others may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we need to detect and treat [Hepatitis C] if we are to head off very high rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the next decade.'' Some may argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work cut out for us, and further study should be done. However, there is already a substantial body of research which has firmly established that veterans have a higher incidence of Hepatitis C when compared to non-veterans. We should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they deserve while further research is being conducted. Today is Veteran's Day and we will all take time to honor the sacrifices that these brave men and women have made to defend the freedom of this country and ensure others could live in peace. These veterans shouldn't be asked to fight another battle for the benefits and respect that they have earned. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in addressing the health concerns of this Nation's veterans, and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the VA-HUD appropriators, and veterans groups to meet this emerging challenge.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, in reintroducing the FamilyCare Act of 2003, which has strong bipartisan support. First developed in 2001, FamilyCare extends health insurance coverage to more Americans by expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and State-Children's Health Insurance Program. Increasing access to the health insurance for the uninsured is as vexing an issue as Congress will consider, and no issue is as compelling. The diagnosis is clear--over 44 million Americans aren't getting the health care they need because they lack the money to pay for it. And as the most recent Census data shows, the number of Americans without health insurance is increasing--by 2 million in 2002 alone. And yet, the number of uninsured Americans could be even higher. If it were not for Medicaid and S-CHIP, over a million more people would not have had health coverage in 2002. The percentage of children with private coverage fell from 66.7 percent in 2001 to 63.9 percent in 2002; for adults, it slipped from 73.7 percent to 72.3 percent. Fortunately, at the same time, the number and percentage of children and non-elderly adults covered by public health insurance--primarily Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)-- increased. The number of children who lost private health insurance coverage was offset from increased enrollment in public programs, which rose from 23.6 percent in 2001 to 27.1 percent in 2002; and the percentage of non-elderly adults covered rose from 9.4 percent to 10.3 percent. Taken together, this means that about 2.5 million more children and 1.6 million more non-elderly adults had health insurance coverage in 2002 because Medicaid and SCHIP expanded during the economic downturn. We all know about the problem. The question now is, what is the best possible cure? And while we know that there is no one answer, I think we can all agree that the solutions are long overdue. I find it astonishing that here we are in the 21st century, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and still our citizens are going without basic coverage and care. We're talking about working families-- close to three-quarters of the nearly seven million lower-income, uninsured parents in America have jobs. They just don't have access to affordable coverage. Year after year Congress has debated this issue. Last Congress we invested $28 billion in a reserve fund to help increase the rolls of the insured in America. Then the President, in his fiscal year 2003 budget, allocated $89 billion to help the uninsured. And finally, this Congress in its fiscal year 2004 budget established a $50 billion reserve fund. Yet, no action has been taken that actually extends coverage to the uninsured. Now is the time to act. The news that an additional 2 million Americans joined the ranks of the uninsured in 2002 should be a wake-up call. We must work together to find common ground so that we finally can take the steps necessary to help the millions of working Americans and their families who cannot afford health insurance coverage. And while my colleagues and I are not claiming that the FamilyCare bill is the entire answer, we do believe it is a workable, uncomplicated proposal based on a proven approach that has the potential of reaching in the neighborhood of 13 million American children and their families. With so much at stake, we ought to be building on what works, and the S-CHIP program fits the bill. In just the six short years since this program passed under the leadership of Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Rockefeller and the late John Chafee, this federal-state partnership has extended coverage to over 5 million low- income children. In my own home State of Maine under the ``Cub Care'' program, the number of children without health insurance has dropped dramatically. In 2003 alone, Maine extended health insurance coverage to more than 12,800 low-income children. Unfortunately, roughly 16,600 or one in seventeen children are still without health insurance in Maine. We can and must do more. We should applaud states for taking the lead and helping to show us the answer to this crisis. But a massive national problem requires a national solution--and a good place to start is with the over four million children nationwide who are eligible for SCHIP benefits but remain unenrolled mostly because parents simply don't know the program exists. Our FamilyCare measure narrows that ``coverage gap'' while at the same time adding to the roles of the insured in America by covering the parents of low income children. Low-income Americans--those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level, or about $36,000 for a family of four--comprise 65 percent of the uninsured. We take this approach because the facts tell us it works. We know that states that covered parents through S-CHIP saw a 16 percent increase in the number of children enrolled in their program versus only 3 percent for states that enrolled only children. . . We also know from the Commonwealth Fund's May 2001 report that almost 90 percent of low-income children who have insured parents themselves are insured as compared to just 348 percent of children with an uninsured parent . . . And we know that low-income children with insured parents are more than twice as likely to have health insurance as children with uninsured parents. That's because states can insure parents at the same time they insure the children--offering ``one-stop-shopping'' that also helps ensure that services hit their intended target and provides for family-based continuity of care. The FamilyCare bill adopts this proven approach and with so many pieces already in place we should be able to get moving on this because, frankly, if not now, when? And if not now, why? In these times of trouble, how could we face the American people and tell them we are unwilling to help address one of our nation's highest priorities? How could we explain that we reneged on our obligation to right this national wrong? That's why we want to work with our Committee leadership to see that FamilyCare is included to the greatest extent possible in any proposal that the Finance Committee considers when it develops its proposal to extend coverage to the uninsured. Because, like a letter mailed without an address, benefits that aren't delivered to our children are benefits that might as well not exist. The bottom line is, parental coverage ensures that children will be more likely to be enrolled in S-CHIP, and the FamilyCare Act of 2003 will help us provide insurance to as many as 13 million parents and children. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this bill gets passed and I urge you all to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, in reintroducing the FamilyCare Act of 2003, which has strong bipartisan support. First developed in 2001, FamilyCare extends health insurance coverage to more Americans by expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and State-Children's Health Insurance Program. Increasing access to the health insurance for the uninsured is as vexing an issue as Congress will consider, and no issue is as compelling. The diagnosis is clear--over 44 million Americans aren't getting the health care they need because they lack the money to pay for it. And as the most recent Census data shows, the number of Americans without health insurance is increasing--by 2 million in 2002 alone. And yet, the number of uninsured Americans could be even higher. If it were not for Medicaid and S-CHIP, over a million more people would not have had health coverage in 2002. The percentage of children with private coverage fell from 66.7 percent in 2001 to 63.9 percent in 2002; for adults, it slipped from 73.7 percent to 72.3 percent. Fortunately, at the same time, the number and percentage of children and non-elderly adults covered by public health insurance--primarily Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)-- increased. The number of children who lost private health insurance coverage was offset from increased enrollment in public programs, which rose from 23.6 percent in 2001 to 27.1 percent in 2002; and the percentage of non-elderly adults covered rose from 9.4 percent to 10.3 percent. Taken together, this means that about 2.5 million more children and 1.6 million more non-elderly adults had health insurance coverage in 2002 because Medicaid and SCHIP expanded during the economic downturn. We all know about the problem. The question now is, what is the best possible cure? And while we know that there is no one answer, I think we can all agree that the solutions are long overdue. I find it astonishing that here we are in the 21st century, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and still our citizens are going without basic coverage and care. We're talking about working families-- close to three-quarters of the nearly seven million lower-income, uninsured parents in America have jobs. They just don't have access to affordable coverage. Year after year Congress has debated this issue. Last Congress we invested $28 billion in a reserve fund to help increase the rolls of the insured in America. Then the President, in his fiscal year 2003 budget, allocated $89 billion to help the uninsured. And finally, this Congress in its fiscal year 2004 budget established a $50 billion reserve fund. Yet, no action has been taken that actually extends coverage to the uninsured. Now is the time to act. The news that an additional 2 million Americans joined the ranks of the uninsured in 2002 should be a wake-up call. We must work together to find common ground so that we finally can take the steps necessary to help the millions of working Americans and their families who cannot afford health insurance coverage. And while my colleagues and I are not claiming that the FamilyCare bill is the entire answer, we do believe it is a workable, uncomplicated proposal based on a proven approach that has the potential of reaching in the neighborhood of 13 million American children and their families. With so much at stake, we ought to be building on what works, and the S-CHIP program fits the bill. In just the six short years since this program passed under the leadership of Senators Kennedy, Hatch, Rockefeller and the late John Chafee, this federal-state partnership has extended coverage to over 5 million low- income children. In my own home State of Maine under the ``Cub Care'' program, the number of children without health insurance has dropped dramatically. In 2003 alone, Maine extended health insurance coverage to more than 12,800 low-income children. Unfortunately, roughly 16,600 or one in seventeen children are still without health insurance in Maine. We can and must do more. We should applaud states for taking the lead and helping to show us the answer to this crisis. But a massive national problem requires a national solution--and a good place to start is with the over four million children nationwide who are eligible for SCHIP benefits but remain unenrolled mostly because parents simply don't know the program exists. Our FamilyCare measure narrows that ``coverage gap'' while at the same time adding to the roles of the insured in America by covering the parents of low income children. Low-income Americans--those with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level, or about $36,000 for a family of four--comprise 65 percent of the uninsured. We take this approach because the facts tell us it works. We know that states that covered parents through S-CHIP saw a 16 percent increase in the number of children enrolled in their program versus only 3 percent for states that enrolled only children. . . We also know from the Commonwealth Fund's May 2001 report that almost 90 percent of low-income children who have insured parents themselves are insured as compared to just 348 percent of children with an uninsured parent . . . And we know that low-income children with insured parents are more than twice as likely to have health insurance as children with uninsured parents. That's because states can insure parents at the same time they insure the children--offering ``one-stop-shopping'' that also helps ensure that services hit their intended target and provides for family-based continuity of care. The FamilyCare bill adopts this proven approach and with so many pieces already in place we should be able to get moving on this because, frankly, if not now, when? And if not now, why? In these times of trouble, how could we face the American people and tell them we are unwilling to help address one of our nation's highest priorities? How could we explain that we reneged on our obligation to right this national wrong? That's why we want to work with our Committee leadership to see that FamilyCare is included to the greatest extent possible in any proposal that the Finance Committee considers when it develops its proposal to extend coverage to the uninsured. Because, like a letter mailed without an address, benefits that aren't delivered to our children are benefits that might as well not exist. The bottom line is, parental coverage ensures that children will be more likely to be enrolled in S-CHIP, and the FamilyCare Act of 2003 will help us provide insurance to as many as 13 million parents and children. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this bill gets passed and I urge you all to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Sense of the Senate resolution to encourage the Department of the Treasury to initiate expedited negotiations with the People's Republic of China on establishing a market-based currency valuation and to fulfill its commitments under international trade agreements. The resolution explains why China's currency policy is an unfair manipulation which violates international trading rules and puts American manufacturers at a disadvantage. We cannot continue to allow this exploitation to continue to the detriment of our workers. Therefore, this resolution sends a strong message to the administration that we must increase our efforts to bring about a market-based valuation of China's currency. In an open trading system, manipulation of currency--either by frequent intervention or by a calculated undervaluation of one's currency through a fixed exchange rate--undermines the concept of comparative advantage by creating market distortions. These disruptions not only affect trade but also result in the loss of real jobs for U.S. manufacturers. This is particularly devastating in my State, which has lost over 17,300 manufacturing jobs since July 2000. Congress granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China because we knew that China would become a major player in international markets whether we wanted them to or not. After all, China already enjoyed total access to our market while we did not have the same benefit. Perhaps most importantly, we supported PNTR because a China in the World Trade Organization is bound by the same international trade rules as the United States or any of our other trading partners. While many were optimistic about the increased market access to the world's largest population, few dared to expect this to be an easy path. I have heard from company after company who have had to face the reality that they can no longer compete with unfairly priced Chinese products. Some argue they were forced to close their doors because of China's low labor costs, and others argue it is the lack of labor and environmental regulations in China that makes us uncompetitive. However, the full extent of China's advantage is the combination of an artifically undervalued currency, unfair non-tariff barriers, and low cost of production. While we all want wages, labor rights, and environmental protection to improve in China, the biggest concern that every manufacturer brings to my attention is that they can't compete with a currency undervaluation that economists estimate could be as high as 40 percent. This serves as a de facto subsidy that no competitor can surmount. The damage manufacturing has sustained is nothing short of alarming. From July 2000 through July 2003, almost 2.7 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. New England alone lost more than 214,000 manufacturing jobs between June 1993 through June 2003, with fully 78 percent of those losses, 166,000 jobs, occurring since January of 2001. The job losses have been so focused on the manufacturing sector that a manufacturing worker had a 50 times greater chance of losing his or her job than did other workers. For these reasons, I have been among a core group in Congress that has called on the administration to take strong action with regards to the foreign manipulation of currencies. I was pleased to work with my colleagues to ask the Treasury Secretary to make China's currency the top priority of his recent trip to Asia. Secretary Snow took the message to China that the manipulation of its currency must end and that China should take steps to freely float its currency. I was pleased with his action and I was further encouraged by the fact that President Bush raised the same concern with his counterpart at the APEC Summit. The administration has placed a high priority on this issue, but I am concerned about the findings of Treasury's recent report on currency manipulation. The Secretary of the Treasury is required to determine yearly if foreign countries ``manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.'' The law then requires that Treasury initiate expedited negotiations with these countries. However, in the face of compelling evidence of the deliberate currency manipulation by the Chinese government to gain an unfair trade advantage, that report downplayed the nature of China's exchange rate policy, stating that ``no major trading partner of the United States meets the technical requirements for designation.'' I believe that the facts clearly illustrate that the definition has been met. China has seen significant increases in production capability, productivity, and foreign direct investment since the initial peg, which would generally lead towards upward pressure on the currency value. In response, the government of the People's Republic of China has had to significantly intervene in its foreign exchange markets in order to hold the value of their currency within its tight and artificial trading band. This manipulation has resulted in enormous growth in China's dollar reserves, estimated to be over $346 billion as of June 2003, an increase of 43 percent from June 2002. In addition, China's policy is clearly in violation of article IV of the WTO which says members ``shall not by exchange rate action frustrate the intent'' of the WTO, which is to create fair and open markets for global commerce. China has joined the world trading system--it must now play by its rules and adhere to these principles. This resolution is about restoring some sense of order to the global trading community which has been distorted by the policy of the Chinese government to unfairly subsidize every single export through the manipulation of its currency. It is my hope that the strong message sent by this Sense of the Senate will result in a renewed vigor and resolve to bring China's currency into the free market.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Leahy, in offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill that would preserve funding for our Nation's working lands conservation programs. This amendment parallels legislation I have cosponsored along with the Senator from Vermont. It would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, from diverting funding from key working lands programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, and the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, FRPP, to pay for technical assistance. The 2002 farm bill made it clear that the USDA should expand the opportunities for farmers across the country to participate in voluntary conservation programs that balance stewardship goals with on- farm production. This has not happened though. In fiscal year 2003, the USDA transferred over $90 million away from working lands conservation programs to pay for technical assistance of the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. This diversion of funds prevented countless numbers of farmers from signing up for working lands incentive programs. Unless this problem is corrected, the Department estimates that at least $77 million will be diverted in the coming fiscal year. For many States, including my own, conservation programs are a critical source of Federal assistance and are a valuable tool for helping small and specialty crop growers enhance their production while caring for the land. Funds from these programs reach an array of producers, including fruit and vegetable farmers, dairy farmers, and ranchers. The amendment being introduced today ensures that conservation payments would reach a broad range of farmers. Our amendment does not set new policy, rather, it reinforces the mandates Congress made in the 2002 farm bill. Congress recognized the importance of conservation in agriculture by significantly increasing funding for the working lands conservation programs. With the additional resources provided by the farm bill, Congress intended the USDA to expand the opportunity for farmers to practice farm and ranchland stewardship. Congress also anticipated the need to fund technical assistance for CRP and provided specific language in the 2002 farm bill directing the Department to use mandatory funding to pay for CRP technical assistance. Unfortunately, the USDA has not followed through on congressional intent. Over the past year, the USDA has diverted over $90 million from working lands incentive programs. Without corrective action, farmers' conservation options will be curtailed even more severely as the USDA transfers funding away from working lands incentive programs to pay for technical assistance for other programs in the Department. The amendment simply, but explicitly, states that the USDA may not take funding from working lands conservation programs to pay for CRP technical assistance. This clarification will allow our working lands programs to retain the funding that Congress provides. It does not add or subtract funding, rather it makes sure that the funds are used by the program for which Congress intended. Let me also emphasize that the amendment does not require USDA to shut down CRP in fiscal year 2004. It continues to allow the USDA to exercise its authority to provide CRP technical assistance through mandatory funding, exactly as Congress originally directed in the 2002 farm bill. In closing, I join my distinguished colleagues today because I believe it is time that Congress step in and protect our working lands programs from being raided by the USDA. Until we can reach a broader agreement on implementation of the 2002 farm bill provision on conservation technical assistance, it is imperative that we hold our working lands conservation programs harmless. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman of this subcommittee, my good friend from Utah is no doubt aware of the important role that wildlife services provided by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have in managing and protecting wildlife. I am pleased that the subcommittee maintained funding for these operations as many States, including my own, depend on the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government to meet the growing demands for wildlife services. Given the need for beaver management in my State, I would ask the Chairman to work to have APHIS continue providing cooperative beaver management services in Maine. The State's Cooperative Beaver Management Program (CBMP) was established in 1995 by Maine Wildlife Services as a cooperative effort between State, Federal, and local governments to provide services to landholders, the Maine Department of Transportation, towns and municipalities who are experiencing problems caused by beavers. With the cost-share agreement between the State and APHIS, CBMP has been able to mitigate beaver related property, road, water, and environmental damage. A reduction in cost share assistance to Maine would have a severe impact on many of the State's public resources and roadways. Beaver- flooded roadways endanger the driving public while beaver-flooded sewer and septic systems create a health hazard as well as incur significant repair expenses. In addition to helping avoid costly repairs to our public infrastructure, cost-share assistance to the CBMP can reduce damage to private logging roads that are important to the forest products based local economies. It reduces environmental damage, such as erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation, caused by road wash-outs. The State of Maine reports that the CBMP provides significant benefits to the public in a very effective way. For example, in fiscal year 2002 CBMP activities prevented the loss of, or damage to, $1.3 million in resources. For the driving public, the benefits are particularly significant. The program saved $500,000 in roadway repair costs by alleviating flooded roads and rights-of way along the interstate and other State maintained highways. Comparing the cost of the program to the value of resources saved gives a cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 10. In other words, for every dollar spent, ten dollars were saved over the long-term. Ever since the creation of the CBMP in 1995, funding has remained level. Under this agreement Maine has received $75,000 annually. In recent years, however, demand for CBMP services has outstripped program funding thereby limiting the State's ability to prevent property damage and threats to human health and safety. Additionally, the State is concerned that highway safety is being compromised because of flooding caused by beaver dams. I recognize that the subcommittee has worked to maintain APHIS wildlife services in the face of budget limitations. I appreciate the chairman's effort to continue this program and thank the chairman for considering options to address the unique beaver management needs in Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak as we have just concluded Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During October, about 16,000 more women heard the news all women dread, ``You have breast cancer.'' That is over 190,000 women this year. Among women between 35 and 54 years of age, no disease claims more lives. In more personal terms, an American woman faces a one in nine chance of sitting down and hearing those words from her physician. At that moment everything changes. We can be thankful that more women are surviving this diagnosis. Modern treatments and early detection are saving lives. Many of my colleagues have joined with me in supporting research into better diagnosis and treatment. Just last month, we learned of a new drug treatment which substantially reduced the recurrence of breast cancer. We have made great strides, and I am grateful to the many researchers who fight long hours battling this disease. And we sometimes forget the men and women who, while suffering the effects of breast cancer, have volunteered in these studies, at a time when they are already going through such a struggle. We owe all of them our gratitude for the strides we have made in fighting this disease. Despite this progress, one in every five women diagnosed still will not survive breast cancer. Modern treatments are useless without a diagnosis. With early detection and treatment, death and injury can be so greatly reduced. I call on American women today to take the initiative. Many women have been taught to do self-exams, and while they can help, they are no substitute for a mammogram. I urge you now to ask your physician about a mammogram. Mammograms saves lives. But maybe you have put it off: you can't miss work, or the kids have an event, or maybe, well, the previous mammograms were OK, so you think you are probably fine. Instead, think of missing other things, such as your child's graduation, those anniversaries with your spouse, or doing any of the things we too often take for granted, just due to making the visit a bit too late. When a woman receives bad news she is facing so many worries--the threat to her life. She first asks, Will I survive this? Then she asks how she will survive. What will they do to me? The fortunate woman has her loved ones, her family, her friends to stand by and support her. But she needs more. When the news is bad, we can make the battle easier. I have recently reintroduced legislation to ensure that. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 2003, S. 1730, will provide the assurances women need. No woman with breast cancer should be subjected to substandard care. A woman should be confident in her diagnosis and every cancer patient deserves a second opinion. S. 1730 ensures that. Every woman should be offered treatment options, including inpatient care. Every woman should have adequate time to recover. It is time to recognize that the best judgment comes from the expert physician working with the patient. The last question a woman should have to worry about when facing breast cancer is whether or not her health insurance plan will pay for appropriate care after a mastectomy of lumpectomy, or that she won't be able to remain in her doctor's immediate care for as long as she needs to be. The evidence for the need for this bill, especially when it comes to so-called ``drive through mastectomies,'' is more than just allegorical. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. Between 1986 and 1995, the average length of stay for a mastectomy dropped from about 6 days to about 2 to 3 days. Many of my colleagues have joined with me in working for better screening, research, and improved treatment. This issue of treatment and ensuring standards of care have been introduced and discussed. We have had hearings back in the 105th Congress. And in the intervening years, well over a million more women faced those words, ``You have breast cancer''. Women, and their loved ones, deserve more. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work towards passing it this year. At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the final passage of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental. I support this bill because it provides the resources necessary to support our gallant troops who are working in Iraq and Afghanistan to rid the world of the scourge of international terrorism and to recover from Hussein's corruption. This bill provides our forces with $65.7 billion to continue their campaign to restore peaceful and prosperous societies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As our troops continue to root out the remnants of Hussein's horrific regime and work to ensure stability in Iraq, we must do no less than provide them with the most advanced technology, the most reliable force protection equipment, and the best personal care available. I believe that we all fundamentally agree that the funds requested to support our military forces in the field must be made available immediately. However, as we are all aware, there was considerable debate when it came to the $18.6 billion this bill provides for reconstruction efforts in Iraq--specifically regarding whether the funds should be provided as loans rather than a grant. I maintained throughout the debate that some portion, if not all, of these reconstruction funds should be in the form of loans. Many argued that providing loans was not feasible--that it unduly burdened the Iraqi people. But after considering the totality of what we were talking about--that American men and women are putting themselves in harm's way day in and day out in securing the liberation of the people of Iraq and that we are also in the process of spending $100 billion and more for that very same purpose, I concluded that asking the Iraqi people to be responsible for a portion of their reconstruction was only fair. It remains my belief that the American people are not making a distinction between the money we are spending to support our troops and the additional funds being proposed to rebuild Iraq when it comes to the total measure of our nation's sacrifice toward this cause. So asking Iraq to repay one-tenth of that $100 billion in the form of loans seemed eminently reasonable to me. Some also argued that there was not a legitimate government in Iraq that could obligate the nation to the repayment of loans. But the international community, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511, specifically acknowledged that the Iraqi Governing Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration which ``embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transitional period until an internationally recognized, representative government is established.'' Finally, still others maintained that providing loans to Iraq would run counter to the U.S. policy of shifting away from loans for development because of the ineffectiveness of such programs in the past. But that policy is predicated on the fact that many heavily- indebted, poor countries do not have the resources to both service debt and institute economic and social reform. Iraq, in contrast, is tremendously rich in resources to an extent sufficient to service this debt and continue to make future investments in their own infrastructure. Therefore, after careful consideration and many discussions with my colleagues and constituents, I worked to author, with Senators Bayh, Ben Nelson, Chambliss, Ensign, Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and Collins, an amendment that designated $10 billion of the Iraqi reconstruction funds as a loan. However, we also included a ``trigger with a purpose''-- designed to both encourage existing creditor countries to forgive at least 90 percent of the debt owed on loans that were made to the former regime of Saddam Hussein, and to foster within Iraq itself a greater sense of responsibility toward, and a stake in, their own long-term rebuilding success. I was heartened when, by a vote of 51-47, the Senate passed our amendment and included it in the bill sent to conference. However, during the conference, conferees decided to provide the entirety of reconstruction funds to Iraq as a grant rather than a loan and removed our amendment from the final report. I am extremely disappointed that conferees voted to remove the Senate provision in spite of the subsequent House of Representatives vote instructing their conferees to accept our amendment. Mr. President, I still do not believe that the provision of $10 billion in loans to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their nation would have placed an undue burden on them or their economy. Instead, by investing these loans in Iraq, we would have acted to restore their national pride and enhance their sense of responsibility as we worked toward the common goal of a free and stable Iraq. With this bill, we are financing the restoration of a peaceful and prosperous society in Iraq and while I would have preferred this bill include provisions to ensure the U.S. taxpayer did not shoulder the burden alone, this bill includes the funds necessary to support our troops in the field. We must commit the resources necessary for our brave young men and women to carry out the task of making the world a safer place a task they are ready for and a task they are performing magnificently. For that reason, I support this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing the Senate to consider S. 1400, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2003. I would also like to thank several of my colleagues for co-sponsoring this bill, including Senators Kerry, McCain, Hollings, Breaux, Inouye, Lott, Boxer, and Collins. Those familiar with the challenges of trying to monitor and predict ocean and marine environmental conditions--whether for marine science, resource management, and maritime transportation and safety--are aware of our tremendous need for better collection of basic ocean data. This bill, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2003, would develop and formalize an integrated network of ocean observing systems around our Nation's coastlines, thereby allowing comprehensive and consistent ocean data to be gathered and fulfilling this critical information need. It would revolutionize our Nation's efforts in collecting, processing, and communicating ocean and coastal data. Like other coastal states, Maine has an enduring connection to the ocean. We are highly dependent on the fisheries resources and other essential services provided to us by the sea, and we understand that our lives and livelihoods are firmly rooted in how well we understand and adapt to ocean conditions. This became much easier to do in 2001, when the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, deployed ten observation buoys in the Gulf of Maine. This prototype system has transformed how we gather information about the ocean and track ocean conditions over time. On the surface, these buoys measure currents, temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and other key environmental variables. By modifying the instrumentation, other data can be gathered from these platforms. What sets the GoMOOS observation system apart from the traditional data gathering approach, however, is that it takes all these ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these near real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the general public through the internet. GoMOOS thereby provides a tremendous public service. The need for this type of ocean data gathering and access is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. The U.S. coastline spans 95,000 miles, and all States that border our oceans and Great Lakes would benefit from this service. Ocean and coastal observing systems have been planned or developed for other coastal regions, many in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, State coastal management agencies, universities, and other regional partners. These systems, however, use different approaches for collecting, managing, processing, and communicating data through their network, and these data are often incompatible with data from other regions. As a result, we lose a valuable opportunity to develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation. S. 1400, the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act, seeks to solve this problem. This bill would coordinate ocean and coastal observation efforts with the support of the Federal Government. It would help develop regional observation systems, link them through a nationwide network, and provide public access to the information so anyone can better understand and track ocean and coastal conditions. It would call on the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to design, operate, and improve a Nationwide observation system, as well as administer an ocean data research and development program. This Council would plan these activities through a collaborative interagency planning office and carry them out through a joint operations center. The American public--over half of which lives along our coastlines-- will be very well served through the many uses and applications of this system. Fisheries, scientists, and managers can use this information to predict ocean conditions that affect productivity and utilize this information in resource management. Fishermen, sailors, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, the military, and others who traverse the ocean can better predict safe sea conditions, and shippers can transport goods more efficiently, Ocean scientists and regulators can better understand, predict, and rapidly respond to marine pollution. Educators and students can learn more about marine science. Clearly, anyone who relies upon the ocean stands to benefit from this Nationwide observation system. Mr. President, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard and as a coastal State Senator, I am extremely proud to sponsor and support this bill. Considering the tremendous public good and services that these systems provide, it is imperative that we in Congress facilitate the development and funding of a national, integrated, and sustained ocean observation network. We can do this by passing the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act. Following action by the Senate, I encourage the House of Representatives to take action on this bill to facilitate its passage into law. I am confident that this bill, once enacted, will serve the public well by facilitating better understanding of our Nation's oceans and coasts, and I thank my colleagues for supporting it.