Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American Home Fire Safety Act authored by my colleague Senator Hollings. I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation along with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Breaux, Boxer and Dorgan. While the purpose of our bill is to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to implement national standards for mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bedding, our ultimate goal is to save lives. According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the National Fire Protection Association, in 1998, the last year for which statistics are available, American homes suffered over 330,000 fires serious enough to require a response from firefighters. In those fires, more than 2,600 Americans died and another 15,000 suffered injuries requiring medical treatment. The property loss from those fires totaled over $3.5 billion. Of the many items first ignited in residential fires, upholstered furniture is the product most frequently involved in fire deaths (20 percent) followed by mattresses and bedding (15 percent). Among the different forms of heat involved in the ignition of fires, smoking materials accounted for 30 percent of fire deaths with candles accounting for six percent of the fire deaths, followed by lighters at five percent and matches at three percent. Effective fire protection depends on redundancy. Public education, building codes, smoke detectors, and automatic fire sprinklers each are important but imperfect tools where they exist--and too often they do not. The fact is that even with these tools available, more than 900 Americans--that's five of our fellow citizens every two days--die every year in fires involving cigarettes, small open flames such as candles, upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding. Those are the numbers--but there is a tragedy behind every one of them. Let me speak just for a moment about one such tragedy that visited my state one cold night in January of 2000. That night a young boy of six playing with a lighter ignited the sofa bed he was on and in the ensuing fire he and his two brothers--they were triplets--perished. But the tragedy doesn't stop there because one of the volunteer firefighters who responded that night, Waldo County Sheriff Robert Jones, suffered a fatal heart attack while fighting the blaze. No, Mr. President, this is not just about the numbers--although they are staggering--it is about the human tragedy. The American Home Fire Safety Act will require the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission to enforce specific fire safety standards for each of these products. These are not new, burdensome standards--in fact, they are standards already established by the American Society of Testing and Materials or the state of California. American manufacturers of mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bedding have already developed cost-effective technology and processes to make these household goods less flammable than current products. Collectively--and in combination with existing fire protection technologies--we hope to save hundreds of lives, avoid thousands of serious injuries and billions of dollars in lost property. Finally, I would like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Western Fire Chiefs Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals and numerous state Fire Chief's Associations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to establish national standards for some of the household products at the core of residential fires. By doing so, perhaps we can spare our fellow Americans needless suffering.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American Home Fire Safety Act authored by my colleague Senator Hollings. I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation along with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Breaux, Boxer and Dorgan. While the purpose of our bill is to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to implement national standards for mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bedding, our ultimate goal is to save lives. According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the National Fire Protection Association, in 1998, the last year for which statistics are available, American homes suffered over 330,000 fires serious enough to require a response from firefighters. In those fires, more than 2,600 Americans died and another 15,000 suffered injuries requiring medical treatment. The property loss from those fires totaled over $3.5 billion. Of the many items first ignited in residential fires, upholstered furniture is the product most frequently involved in fire deaths (20 percent) followed by mattresses and bedding (15 percent). Among the different forms of heat involved in the ignition of fires, smoking materials accounted for 30 percent of fire deaths with candles accounting for six percent of the fire deaths, followed by lighters at five percent and matches at three percent. Effective fire protection depends on redundancy. Public education, building codes, smoke detectors, and automatic fire sprinklers each are important but imperfect tools where they exist--and too often they do not. The fact is that even with these tools available, more than 900 Americans--that's five of our fellow citizens every two days--die every year in fires involving cigarettes, small open flames such as candles, upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding. Those are the numbers--but there is a tragedy behind every one of them. Let me speak just for a moment about one such tragedy that visited my state one cold night in January of 2000. That night a young boy of six playing with a lighter ignited the sofa bed he was on and in the ensuing fire he and his two brothers--they were triplets--perished. But the tragedy doesn't stop there because one of the volunteer firefighters who responded that night, Waldo County Sheriff Robert Jones, suffered a fatal heart attack while fighting the blaze. No, Mr. President, this is not just about the numbers--although they are staggering--it is about the human tragedy. The American Home Fire Safety Act will require the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission to enforce specific fire safety standards for each of these products. These are not new, burdensome standards--in fact, they are standards already established by the American Society of Testing and Materials or the state of California. American manufacturers of mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles and bedding have already developed cost-effective technology and processes to make these household goods less flammable than current products. Collectively--and in combination with existing fire protection technologies--we hope to save hundreds of lives, avoid thousands of serious injuries and billions of dollars in lost property. Finally, I would like to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Western Fire Chiefs Association, the National Association of State Fire Marshals and numerous state Fire Chief's Associations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to establish national standards for some of the household products at the core of residential fires. By doing so, perhaps we can spare our fellow Americans needless suffering.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the pending amendment by Senator DeWine to add an additional $289 million to our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS. I am pleased to be able to support this amendment because of the agreement reached to offset this critical spending need within the existing budget. This funding could not come at a more crucial time, as the continent of Africa faces a most severe crisis. I agree with the President that ``in the face of preventable death and suffering, we have a moral duty to act.'' The United States is beginning to do its part in the battle against HIV/AIDS. In this bill alone, we are providing nearly $1.4 billion for the President's new HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria initiative, $250 million of which is available for a contribution to the global fund. The bill also provides $150 million for the President's International Mother and Child HIV Prevention Initiative and $700 million for the Global AIDS Initiative. With this amendment, we will be committing over $2.2 billion toward the global fight against AIDS. Just 2 short years ago, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria was simply an idea that was endorsed by President Bush and U.N. Secretary General Annan. As we stand here today, it has become a reality. President Bush pledged the founding $200 million for the global fund, and our pledge has since risen to $1.6 billion out of the total of $4.7 billion in pledges made to date worldwide. The United States has already provided $623 million to the global fund, more than one-third of total contributions to date. While I am proud of our commitment, I am also disturbed by the lack of commitment from other nations. This is not just a U.S. issue, it is a global issue, and it requires a global response. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Security Council that: by overwhelming the continent's [Africa's] health and social services, by creating millions of orphans, and by decimating health workers and teachers, AIDS is causing social and economic crises which in turn threaten political stability . . . in already unstable societies, this cocktail of disasters is a sure recipe for more conflict. And conflict, in turn, provides fertile ground for further infections. The world recognizes that this has become more than a disease facing the people of Africa, it has become a threat to national security and regional stability. This is a serious epidemic in Africa, capable of toppling foreign governments, touching off ethnic wars and undoing decades of work in developing free-market democracies abroad. In addition, as the U.S. becomes more and more involved in the fight against AIDS, it must also recognize that the methods of contraction need to be addressed on a broader level. Our leadership on AIDS needs to be matched by our efforts on education, gender discrimination, economic development, and conflict resolution. These are all reasons why I have supported providing the countries of sub-Saharan Africa with the means to provide its people with education, prevention techniques, and health care. In May, I was proud to support passage of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. This comprehensive program has the potential over the next decade to provide life-extending drugs to at least 2 million infected people, give human care to 10 million HIV sufferers and AIDS orphans, and prevent 7 million new HIV infections. The overwhelming bipartisan support for that legislation demonstrates the priority of this need, and with this amendment we take an important step toward meeting the U.S. commitment under that bill. The millions of people in sub-Saharan Africa and around the globe affected by AIDS deserve no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Chairman McCain for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and Senator Lieberman for being able at this point for the first time to debate global climate change here in the Senate. Chairman McCain has held many Commerce Committee hearings. As a member of that committee, I can tell you that he is focused singularly on this issue in terms of trying to address one of the most significant environmental issues facing this country in this century. It is long overdue, and this is the first real debate the Senate has had. I am glad that Senator Lieberman raised this issue on domestic reductions because that is what this legislation is addressing, domestic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, thought by the vast majority of international scientists to be the cause of global warming. The legislation before us today, the McCain-Lieberman amendment to the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, sets out to do just that in an environmentally and economically friendly way. I believe any future delay in acting on climate change will lead the U.S. down a path to even greater environmental damage and greater economic harm. As we review more and more the scientific evidence, it is clear to me that we have to address this issue in a very vigorous and aggressive way. The main finding of the 2001 National Academy of Science report called ``Climate Change Science: Analysis of Some Key Questions,'' was this: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. While this report did not rule out natural variability, it stated that: . . . the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities . . . This first chart that I have from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should give us all great pause. The red line on this chart shows the extreme jump in increases in temperatures in the last decade alone when compared to the last 1,000 years, according to tree rings, corals, historical records, and from thermometers. Notice how the red line dramatically shoots up at the far right corner of this chart. Since carbon dioxide emitted today will linger in the atmosphere on average of at least a century, this should be more of a red flag waving before our eyes than just a red line spiraling upwards as to why we should be attempting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions now. What is there not to get when you see the variations of the Earth's surface temperature for the past 1,000 years and see the dramatic incline in just the last few years alone? Addressing global climate change is an issue that cuts across State and national boundaries as well as across interest groups. The majority of religious groups see it as a moral issue, and 75 percent of the general public, according to a new Zogby poll, supports actions under the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Some of the largest companies see it as a business issue. Dupont and BP, realizing climate change's effect on their bottom line, have already achieved larger reductions than our amendment calls for with no net cost. As a matter of fact, the companies have posted an annual savings of $365 million, and this amendment before us today will give them credits for these early actions. One might wonder why a Senator from a cold State such as Maine would worry about a little more warmth, unless you consider the implications of climate change on a number of ecosystems that could be thrown out of balance and truly affect life as we know it. As an example, predictions are that the range of the sugar maple, of significant economic importance to my State during the fall foliage season, will move northward over the next 50 years. The range of softwood and hardwood tree species that grow in Maine are also expected to shift, interfering with the long-term growth plans of the timber industry. In addition, at a recent ``Climate Change and Horticulture'' symposium at Cornell University, scientists stated that crops such as potatoes could be pushed north into Canada. This news doesn't bode well for Maine's crop or those of other potato States such as Idaho, Washington, North Dakota, and Oregon. As you can see from this next chart, States across the country, as indicated in green, are urging the EPA to consider carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and have put carbon caps on powerplants, or are calling on Congress to address the need for reductions in manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The green States with the stripes are currently investigating potential legislative positions the States can take for carbon sequestration through agriculture and forestry initiatives, a move that could be very important in capturing and storing carbon dioxide that will help with domestic emissions reductions. As a matter of fact, the New York Times reported in this morning's a edition: In the last three years, state legislators have passed at least 29 bills, usually with bipartisan support [that address global warming.] But it is not just the States that are taking action on this key issue, as mayors from large metropolitan areas and small rural towns, indicated on this chart by the yellow dots, have written Congress in support of the McCain-Lieberman legislation that we are considering tonight. This past June, my State of Maine passed a bill mandating reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels by the year 2020. The law requires Maine to develop a climate change action plan by next July to guide State agencies, businesses, and others with a goal of reducing emissions. This bill grew out of a 2001 regional emissions agreement signed by six New England Governors and five eastern Canadian premiers. New Hampshire has passed a law curbing carbon dioxide pollution from powerplants. On July 9, Northeast States, led by New York Governor George Pataki, called for a Maryland-to-Maine cap on global warming pollution from powerplants and announced a formal agreement for a regional strategy in the Northeast to reduce emissions through a market-based emissions trading system. Over a year ago, the State of California passed legislation making it the first State to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. And just last month, the Governors of California, Washington, and Oregon announced plans to develop a coordinated strategy to reduce global warming. In the Midwest, 10 years ago, Wisconsin implemented mandatory reporting requirements for large generators of carbon dioxide and is developing a registry that will enable firms to report carbon dioxide reductions that will allow them to obtain credits for these reductions in any future Federal and State greenhouse gas programs. These grassroots efforts are sending Congress a clear and unequivocal message, and one that we should certainly listen to because our atmosphere knows no boundaries. We need to develop a national approach as a first step to emissions reductions for solutions that are environmentally and economically sound. The McCain-Lieberman amendment is a first step in that process. Looking beyond the continental United States at the effects of climate change, scientists tell us that the snows of Kilimanjaro could vanish in 15 years. The glaciers in the Bolivian Andes that once appeared indestructible may disappear in another 10 years. In Alaska, where the average temperature has risen almost 5\1/2\ degrees over the past 30 years, there is evidence of melting permafrost, sagging roads, and dying forests. There is also a 150-square mile, 100-foot thick mass of ice that has existed on the coast of Canada for 3,000 years that is disintegrating from a century-long warming trend, and the melting has been accelerating over the past 2 years. Coral reefs, a large and integral part of the coastal oceans around the world, are under huge stresses as coral bleaching is induced by high water temperatures. Nature magazine reported there is a massive region-wide decline of coral which supports a huge variety of sea life across the entire Caribbean Basin. Experts at a July 2003 NOAA workshop on coral reefs concluded that climate change will continue to render coral reefs even more vulnerable to human-related stresses, such as pollution, diseases, habitat destruction, and overfishing. Prevailing theory has generally held that the climate will respond to rising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions by gradually growing warmer. However, according to a December 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the climate does not respond to change gradually but in sudden jumps that such abrupt changes--and I quote from the report--``are not only possible but likely in the future.'' If such a shift were to happen, it would have immense societal consequences. The report urged that a new research program be initiated to identify the likelihood of the potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. I am pleased the Senate Commerce appropriations legislation included $1.6 million for abrupt climate change research that I and Senator Collins requested to establish a NOAA joint institute at the University of Maine for the study of abrupt climate change. There is no doubt we will continue to need fossil fuel as an energy source. Yet at the same time we should be actively supporting increased use of renewable energy as well. Energy produced from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower do not emit carbon dioxide. We must have the will to change, and Congress must take actions to supply the incentives to promote these clean energies and for energy efficiencies so companies can make investments that extend over a period of time. The amendment before us creates a cap in the trade system that gives businesses more certainty in their business planning, allowing them to receive credits for emissions reduction actions that they can then trade in the marketplace to others who may require credits to meet their obligations. Our proposal even allows the forestry industry to voluntarily enter this program and receive credits for sequestering carbon dioxide through the trees they plant. We also need more accurate data of just how much carbon dioxide the United States is emitting into the atmosphere every year, and I am convinced we can obtain these numbers voluntarily from some of the worst offenders. So a mandatory registry and reporting system for emissions should be put in place as proposed under this amendment. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the McCain-Lieberman amendment to the Climate Stewardship Act. This is going to be absolutely critical for the future of this Nation and for future generations. Through our ingenuity and technology, we need to begin to take the actions to mitigate and to adapt to changes in the global climate system rather than just deferring through benign neglect the problems for other generations to address. Working together, as this legislation is purporting to do, on a bipartisan basis, we have the ability to bequeath future generations a world better and more beautiful than was transmitted to us. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein and myself to clarify the funding under the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. As my colleagues will remember, we stayed on the floor late into the night to pass that bill, and we did so in a bipartisan manner, without amendment, because of the critical importance of providing the President with a bill before he attended the G-8 Summit in Evian, France. In doing so, we sent the President to the G-8 with the firm commitment and resolve of the United States to tackle the global AIDS crisis. This clarification was not made in May, because of the fact that there was no time to conference any changes from the House-passed bill. I believe we did the right thing by sending that bill to the President when we did, but as we address issues today related to funding that commitment, I believe we have a responsibility to address this clarification. This amendment recognizes prevention--along with care and treatment--as essential to stemming the AIDS epidemic and supports a multiplicity of HIV prevention strategies. HIV prevention must include many types of activities, of which prevention activities targeting sexual transmission are only a subset. The amendment is consistent with the intent of the bill by reserving at least one-third of the funds for the prevention of the sexual transmission of HIV for ``abstinence-until-marriage'' programs-- otherwise known as ``abstinence only.'' Ensuring that one-third of prevention funds, instead of one-third of all funds, are used for these ``abstinence only'' programs preserves the funding for multilayered approaches which have been most effective in combating HIV transmission. It is also important to note that the amendment takes into account the fact that there are many ways to succeed in changing the behavior of young people so that they abstain, including programs that emphasize the health benefits of refraining from sexual activity before marriage, and ensures that these programs can benefit from this funding. This clarification reinforces the notion that encouraging programs that educate about abstinence and delayed sexual initiation is a key strategy in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Strategies that include encouraging the delay in the initiation of sexual activity, faithfulness as well as consistent and correct condom use have had the highest rate of prevention of HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. According to the May 2003 report from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, we need to develop a multilayered approach that combines those types of programs with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, promoting voluntary counseling and testing, harm-reduction programs for IV drug users, preventing mother to child transmission, increasing blood safety, and controlling infection in health care settings. This amendment supports the intent of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 by ensuring that funds are targeted to the programs that are the most effective, while balancing the priorities on spending these resources. The amendment also preserves the President's flexibility in determining which programs will be supported. Mr. President, I believe this amendment provides the right approach to this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support this clarification.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering passage of S. 247, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. I must first thank my friend and original cosponsor, Senator Breaux, for his commitment to taking action with me on these important issues. He and I represent coastal States that are directly affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and we see first-hand how these outbreaks have harmful impacts on marine ecology, resource economics, and human health in our States. For instance, during the past several weeks Maine has endured the most toxic red tide to hit our coastline in decades. When humans, fish, and marine mammals eat clams, mussels, oysters, snails, and other shellfish that have fed on the algae that produced this red tide, they are exposed to accumulated toxins, which can cause harmful--even fatal--neurological problems. This phenomenon occurs along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, but it has increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years. In Maine this month, the most recent outbreak caused public health alerts and closed the entire coastline to shellfishing, and it may even be linked to the deaths of 21 large whales, including humpbacks. As you can see, due to these events passage of this bill is extremely timely. I must also thank Senators Voinovich, DeWine, and Levin for cosponsoring this bill and helping to expand its scope to include the Great Lakes. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia have increased in Lake Erie and other regional waters in recent years, and Great Lakes- bordering States are struggling to identify the causes of these events. Like other coastal States, they need to be able to better predict, monitor, and mitigate these events in order to protect their environment, economy, and human health. This bill continues and builds upon the research efforts we established in 1998 through the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. This original bill authorized a cross-section of research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. However, algal blooms are still prevalent around the country, the hypoxia ``dead zone'' still occurs each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and the management and mitigation measures set forth in our 1998 bill still need to be realized. The amendments in S. 247 would authorize the funding that will reignite these scientific activities and provide important new authorities. This reauthorization continues to seek and utilize the valuable contributions of the once-temporary Inter- Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia by making it permanent. The bill would direct this Task Force to develop a response and prediction action plan to protect environmental and public health from the harmful impacts of harmful algal blooms. Through this plan, task force members would review prediction techniques, develop innovative response measures, and include incentive-based partnership approaches. The bill would also authorize the task force and the Department of Commerce to develop local and regional assessments at the request of coastal States, Indian tribes, and local governments, so they could obtain technical assistance in addressing their local hypoxia and harmful algal bloom outbreaks. The regional plans will help avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to prediction and response, since local and regional variations in the types of land use, landscape geology, and community input should be taken into account. By tailoring mitigation and management measures to each location, the overall approach can be made more effective. As for the Great Lakes, S. 247 would direct this task force to conduct a scientific assessment of Great Lakes harmful algal blooms, and it would direct them to conduct a scientific assessment of hypoxia in U.S. coastal waters, including the Great Lakes, not less than once every 5 years. This amendment would authorize funding levels for these assessments at $2 million for fiscal years 2004 through 2006. Overall, this bill would authorize $26 million in fiscal year 2004, and $26.5 million in fiscal year 2005, and $27 million in fiscal year 2006. These funding levels reflect modest increases in some of the research and monitoring programs authorized in the 1998 bill and provide funding for the new assessments and implementation of their recommendations. This reauthorization facilitates the continuation and expansion of collaborative, science-based research efforts that can help us better understand how to predict and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. The nation is well-served by legislation that seeks to protect coastal ecosystems, resource-dependent economies, and human health, and I thank my colleagues for supporting this important bill. I look forward to sending this bill to the House of Representatives so that they may undertake the next step in passing it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Bingaman-Snowe amendment to protect the Essential Air Service, EAS, program. Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of EAS, which provides subsidized air service to 125 small communities in the country, including four in Maine--Augusta, Rockland, Bar Harbor and Presque Isle--that would otherwise be cut off from the Nation's air transportation network. As approved in May by the Senate Commerce Committee, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, Reauthorization bill reauthorized and flat-funded the program for 3 years, and includes changes to the program, which are drastically scaled back from what the administration proposed earlier this year for EAS ``reform.'' The administration had called for EAS towns to provide up to 25 percent matching contributions to keep their air service. The Commerce Committee bill creates a number of new programs to help EAS communities grow their ridership, including a marketing incentive program that would financially reward EAS towns for achieving ridership goals. With regard to local cost-sharing--the centerpiece of the Administration's EAS proposal--the Commerce bill would create a pilot program to allow for a 10 percent annual community match at no more than 10 airports within a 100 miles of a large airport. While the cost-sharing provisions in the Committee bill are much less strict than the administration proposal, and could only be applied to a EAS community under certain specific conditions, I remain concerned about the concept of requiring EAS towns--some of which are cash strapped and economically depressed--from kicking in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to keep their air service. For example, if Augusta or Rockland, ME were to be chosen for the cost-sharing pilot program, they would have to come up with more than $120,000 annually to retain their air service. As such, during floor consideration of the FAA bill, I supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to strike the cost-sharing section from the bill, and was pleased when it was approved unanimously by the full Senate. The House adopted an identical amendment offered by Representative Peterson. And I felt so strongly about this issue that in late July I circulated a letter to the FAA conferees signed by 15 other Senators expressing strong opposition to having mandatory EAS cost-sharing language in the final legislative package. As such, I was extremely disappointed when that same language found itself into the FAA conference report issued on July 25. That is why the amendment we have offered today is necessary. While the FAA bill has not been yet signed into law, I agree with my colleague that we need to take out an ``insurance policy'' and ensure that EAS local cost-sharing never gets off the ground. The EAS program is not perfect, and Congress certainly needs to do all we can to keep the costs and subsidy levels associated with the program as low as possible. I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee and the Senate on the issue, but I continue to believe that requiring cost sharing in today's economy and today's aviation environment is clearly a wrong-headed approach. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman-Snowe amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am opposed to the conference report on S. 3, the Partial Birth Abortion Act. In 1973--26 years ago now--the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time a woman's right to choose. This landmark decision was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. It is clear that the underlying Santorum bill does not hold the rights of women paramount--instead, it infringes on those rights in the most grievous of circumstances. Indeed, S. 3 undermines basic tenets of Roe v. Wade, which maintained that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability--the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for fetal life to be maintained outside the women's body--States could ban abortions only if they also allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed their support for exceptions for health of the mother just 3 years ago. In Stenberg vs. Carhart, a case involving the constitutionality of Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban statute, the Supreme Court invalidated the Nebraska statute because it lacks an exception for the performance of the D & X dilation and extraction procedure when necessary to protect the health of the mother, and because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to have an abortion. This case was representative of 21 cases throughout the Nation. Regrettably, however, Senator Santorum's legislation disregards both Supreme Court decisions by not providing an exception for the health of the mother and providing only a narrowly defined life exception. And let there be no mistake I stand here today to reaffirm that no viable fetus should be aborted--by any method--unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Period. During the Senate consideration of this bill earlier this year, I once again cosponsored Senator Durbin's amendment which specifies that postviability abortions would only be lawful if the physician performing the abortion and an independent physician certified in writing that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. It mirrors laws already on the books in 41 States, including my home State of Maine, which ban postviability abortions while at the same time including life and health exceptions mandated by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade. This amendment, which was tabled during the Senate's debate, would have lowered the number of abortions because it bans all postviability abortions. S. 3, in contrast, will not prevent a single abortion. Sadly, it will force women to choose another potentially, more harmful procedure. Is this what we really want? To put women's health and lives at risk? And shouldn't these most critical decisions be left to those with medical training--not politicians? The findings in S. 3 would have you believe that this procedure is never necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother and that in fact it poses significant health risks to a woman. This is simply not true. Let me explain why there must be a health exception for ``grievous physical injury'' in two circumstances. First, the language was to apply in those heart-wrenching cases where a wanted pregnancy seriously threatens the health of the mother. The language would allow a doctor in these tragic cases to perform an abortion because he or she believes it is critical to preserving the health of a woman facing: peripartal cardiomyopathy, a form of cardiac failure which is often caused by the pregnancy, which can result in death or untreatable heart disease; pre-eclampsia, or high blood pressure which is caused by a pregnancy, which can result in kidney failure, stroke or death; and uterine ruptures which could result in infertility. Second, the language also applied when a woman has a life-threatening condition which requires life-saving treatment. It applies to those tragic cases, for example, when a woman needs chemotherapy when pregnant, so the families face the terrible choice of continuing the pregnancy or providing life-saving treatment. These conditions include: breast cancer; lymphoma, which has a 50 percent mortality rate if untreated; and primary pulmonary hypertension, which has a 50 percent maternal mortality rate. Now, I ask my colleagues, who could seriously object under these circumstances? I cosponsored this amendment because I believed that it was a commonsense approach to a serious problem for American women and a contentious issue for the United States Congress. Unfortunately, the omission of this or any other exemption from this ban in cases when the life of the mother is threatened poses a significant and likely a constitutional problem, and without such an exception, I could not support this conference report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Psychiatric Fairness Act of 2003, which will serve to improve access to mental health treatment and remove an unfunded mandate on our private mental health treatment centers. I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Conrad, who like me believes we must improve access to treatment for many of the 18.5 million Americans who are afflicted with a mental health disorder. Moving one step closer to achieving this laudable goal, our bill will require the Medicaid program to provide reimbursement to private mental health facilities that receive patients under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA. EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency care to patients, regardless of their ability to pay. However, this stands in conflict with Medicaid law, which in most cases prohibits payment for psychiatric treatment for people between the age of 21 to 65 years. Our bill takes the critically important step to provide Medicaid coverage for emergency treatment, which will expand access for acute care and will ensure that Americans receive the assistance they vitally need in a timely fashion. Under current law, Medicaid payment for psychiatric treatment for patients between the age of 21 and 65 years is restricted to hospitals that have an in-house psychiatric ward. If a patient seeks care from a private psychiatric hospital or is transferred to a private facility from a community hospital that does not have a psychiatric treatment ward, Medicaid payment is not provided. In comparison, if that same patient seeks care under EMTALA from a hospital because of a physical ailment, Medicaid provides coverage regardless of the type of facility that provides the treatment. By introducing this bill, we are taking a vitally important step toward removing an unfunded mandate on private providers that has served to limit access to care for millions of Medicaid recipients. It also is important to note that the current situation is jeopardizing Medicaid recipients' access to emergency treatment, and ultimately is overwhelming our emergency rooms and in many cases the criminal justice system. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that on average 16 percent of inmates in local jails suffer from a mental illness and in Maine, NAMI, a state advocacy group for persons with mental illness, estimates that figure is as high as 50 percent. This is the result of a severe shortage of psychiatric beds in Maine, and as a result many people go without treatment. Action must be taken to provide access to care and we must start by ensuring that Medicaid reimburses facilities that provide treatment. Senator Conrad and I have joined together in introducing our legislation that will require Medicaid to pay for the cost of care associated with psychiatric treatment necessary to comply with EMTALA. No longer will private entities be required to shoulder the burden of this federal mandate, and no longer will Medicaid eligible beneficiaries go without access to necessary emergency treatments. In my home State of Maine, 65,000 people have a severe mental illness and could benefit from this bill. Ensuring that our community treatment facilities are appropriately paid, we will be able to open access to vitally important treatment options. This bill has been carefully crafted with input from both the provider and beneficiary communities to ensure assistance is directed to those who are most in need and to ensure that the coverage only extends to people who require emergency treatment. We have tied the legislation to the EMTALA statute to ensure that this new requirement cannot be exploited. Demonstrating the importance of this legislation, we have received support from a number of leading national mental health and medical associations, including NAMI, the National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Hospital Association and the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems. I am especially pleased to have also received endorsements from a number of Maine organizations, including the Maine Hospital Association, Maine chapter of NAMI, the State Department of Behavioral and Development Services and the Spring Harbor Hospital. This legislative change is vitally important to ensure Medicaid patients have access to emergency mental health treatment. I want to thank Senator Conrad for his help in crafting this policy and urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Leahy and Senator Burns, in cosponsoring the Conservation Technical Assistance Act to preserve funding for our Nation's working lands conservation programs. Through these valuable programs, farmers across the country are able to participate in voluntary farmland, grassland, environmental and wildlife conservation programs that balance stewardship goals with on-farm production. For many States that do not receive large crop subsidies, including Maine, conservation programs are the principal source of Federal assistance and are a valuable tool for helping small and specialty crop growers enhance their production while caring for the land. This legislation 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 in the 2002 farm bill. Under the new farm law, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should have expanded the opportunity for farmers to practice environmental stewardship. Unfortunately, the USDA has not followed through on congressional intent. Over the past year, the USDA has diverted $158 million from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP), the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) to pay for technical assistance of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As a result of these actions, countless numbers of farmers were prevented from participating in working lands conservation programs. Without corrective action, farmers' conservation options will be curtailed even more severely as the USDA transfers funding to other programs in the Department. I join my distinguished colleagues today because I believe it is high time that Congress intervene with a solution. The northeast is home to an incredible array of agricultural products grown by producers both large and small, and, in some cases, sold locally or nationally. In northern Maine, fields of potatoes stretch for miles along the rolling hills of Aroostook County. Along the eastern coast, wild blueberry barrens dot the maritime horizon. Diary farms populate much of inland Maine, and nearly every other type of speciality crop is grown in farms across the State. Despite the unique needs of each grower, the one common thread between these farmers is their nearly unanimous support for the additional commitment Congress made to working lands conservation programs in the 2002 farm bill. These programs are the State's most effective and substantial source of Federal agricultural support. EQIP, FRPP, WHIP, and GRP make up the lion's share of funding for many States that do not grow traditionally subsidized row crops. Maine, with its diverse agricultural sector, is a prime example of a State that relies on working lands conservation programs to both enhance production and conserve our natural resources. Funds from these programs can be used for projects such as irrigation assistance, water quality, soil erosion control, crop rotation, and other practices. Yet, we are finding these very programs and the benefit they provide being cut by the very department that is tasked with funding them, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In fiscal year 2003, the USDA diverted over $158 million from key working lands conservation programs to pay for technical assistance for CRP. The funding shortfall created by this diversion has dramatically reduced the available resources for EQIP, FRPP, WHIP, and GRP and led our States to have to deny assistance to countless willing farmers. As more acres become available to be enrolled in CRP in future years and the program's technical assistance costs rise, the impact on working lands conservation programs will become more severe. It would have been unnecessary to raid working lands conservation programs to pay for CRP had the Department adhered to the specific language in the 2002 farm bill. In fact, Congress 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. Until we can reach a broader agreement on implementation of the 2002 farm bill provision on conservation technical assistance, it is imperative that we take steps to hold our working lands conservation programs harmless. This legislation does this by simply, but explicitly, stating that the USDA may not take funding from working lands conservation programs to pay for CRP technical assistance. This clarification will allow EQIP, FRPP, WHIP, and GRP to retain the funding that Congress provides. It does not add or subtract funding from an account, rather it makes sure that the funds are used by the program for which Congress intended. Maine's farmers and our farm community cannot afford to be short changed for another year. In fiscal year 2003, my state received a little more than $8 million in conservation funding compared with the promise for $12 million as required by the regional equity provision of the 2002 farm bill. This short-fall in funding not only meant less direct assistance to farmers, but it led the USDA to propose cutting 20 Natural Resource Conservation Service staff positions throughout Maine. While I am pleased that the USDA decided against laying off these NRCS workers, the specter of further conservation shortfalls in the future does not bode well for my State. I cannot allow both farmers and the professionals who support them to suffer because of USDA's actions. In closing, I would like to again thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Montana for working to craft a temporary solution to the conservation technical assistance problem. I believe that this is the right step to take and I hope to continue working with my colleagues to address the problem down the road. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of fiscal year 2004 supplemental appropriations request for military operations and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my colleagues Senator Bayh, Ben Nelson, Chambliss, Ensign, Dorgan, Lindsey Graham, and my fellow Senator from Maine, Senator Collins. This amendment directs that $10 billion of the funds requested for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Iraq's infrastructure be provided as loans rather than grants. It is incumbent upon us as stewards of the public trust to scrutinize this $87 billion supplemental legislation, to assure ourselves of the soundness of the proposals and to understand what it is the American people are being asked to provide. I believe that we all fundamentally agree that the $65.6 billion requested to support our military forces in the field must be made available immediately. 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. Rather, the amendment before us focuses on the $20.3 billion designated for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. I have maintained during this debate that a portion of these reconstruction funds should be in the form of loans, and this amendment designates $10 billion of the $20.3 billion toward that very end. At the same time, the amendment contains a ``trigger with a purpose''--designed to both encourage existing creditor countries to forgive at least 90 percent of the debt owned 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 know some have said that loans simply aren't feasible. But let's take a look at the totality of what we're talking about. While 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, we are also in the process of spending $100 billion and more for that very same purpose. And let there be no mistake--the American people aren't 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 hardly seems unreasonable. But what about those who have argued there is no legitimate government in Iraq that can obligate the nation to the repayment of loans? Well, just today, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1511 which specifically determines that the 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.'' So this interim administration discussed in Resolution 1511 will be that legitimate government to which U.S. loans are made, while Iraq moves forward toward complete self-governance. Still others say 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. Of course, as I have mentioned, there is also that ``trigger with a purpose''. What exactly is that purpose? Well, I would hope we can all agree that long-term stability in Iraq is a global concern that requires global action and a global commitment. A secure, stable Iraq is not only in the best interests of the Middle East, it is also unquestionably in the best interest of freedom-loving nations everywhere. What we are saying with this amendment is, we have been willing to send our American men and women to liberate Iraq . . . we have been willing to spend $100 billion--and undoubtedly that figure will only climb in the future--for that worthy cause . . . and we're even willing to make that ten percent we expend as loans into full fledged grants-- if only those nations who loaned money to the horrific, corrupt Hussein regime in the past will forgive those loans. We are saying, the United States has been willing to accept the overwhelming responsibility for the liberation and rebuilding of Iraq--in money and in lives--now, all we ask is that you, as a creditor nation, contribute to the cause by forgiving loans that only ultimately enriched a criminal, self- aggrandizing regime we all agree we're better off without today. The bottom line is, this amendment sends a message to these creditor nations that they can have a positive role in ensuring a better future for Iraq, not only by lessening Iraq's debt load by the forgiveness of their own loans, but also by triggering our provision that transitions our $10 billion loan into grants. This is a win-win for the international community and for Iraq--and in the long run, with the reduced debt burden for Iraq, it may even save some additional American taxpayer dollars that would have otherwise been expended for further Iraqi rebuilding. Frankly, I don't believe for a moment that taxpayer money sent to Iraq for reconstruction should in any way, shape or form be used to pay back loans made to the heinous regime of Saddam Hussein. So I hope that with the passage of this amendment creditor nations will do the right thing and vitiate their claims against Iraq. Moreover it should be noted that the amendment provides $5.1 billion in direct funding for the purpose of re-establishing the rule of law through the establishment fire and civil defense forces, police forces, a more fully developed judicial system, and the development and enforcement of public safety requirements. The fact is, the sooner we can transfer the responsibility of providing basic police, fire and first responder services to the Iraqi people, the sooner we can begin to remove our troops from the front line and focus them on the missions they are trained for--conducting combat-type operations against the forces bent on attacking American interests at home and abroad. Additionally, as we have learned in Eastern Europe and Latin America, the rule of law is critical to the effective transition of a state-based economy to a free-market economy. Finally, the amendment would provide $5.1 billion immediately to Ambassador Bremer as ``seed'' money for the infrastructure projects he identified in the request. In closing, I do not believe that the provision of $10 billion in loans to the Iraqi people for the reconstruction of their nation will unduly burden them or their economy. Instead, by investing these loans in Iraq, we are working to restore their national pride and enhance their sense of responsibility as we work toward the common goal of a free and stable Iraq. Furthermore, I do not believe it is too much to ask that, as we stand willing to turn our loans into grants, creditor nations who loaned money to the Hussein regime help the cause by wiping their debt slate clean. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friends, Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Feinstein of California, as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that appropriate medical care determines how long a woman stays in the hospital after undergoing a mastectomy--not a predetermined amount of time legislated by Congress. This provision says that inpatient coverage with respect to the treatment of mastectomy, lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection--regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State regulations--will be provided for a period of time as is determined by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically necessary and appropriate. Second, this bill allows any person facing a cancer diagnosis of any type to get a second opinion on their course of treatment. A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. But for an estimated 192,020 American women, this is the year their worst fears will be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home State will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women between the ages of 35 and 54, there is no other disease which will claim more lives. It's not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' are some of the most frightening words in the English language. For the woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step? For many women, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or lumpectomy. Despite the medical and scientific advances that have been made, despite the advances in early detection technology that more and more often negate the need for radical surgery, it still remains a fact of life at the beginning of the 21st century these procedures can be the most prudent option in attacking and eradicating cancer found in a woman's breast. These are the kind of decisions that come with a breast cancer diagnosis. These are the kind of questions women must answer, and they must do so under some of the most stressful and frightening circumstances imaginable. The last question a woman should have to worry about at a time like this is whether or not their health insurance plan will pay for appropriate care after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, or that she won't be able to remain in a doctor's immediate care for as long as she needs to be. A woman diagnosed with breast cancer in many ways already feels as though she has lost control of her life. She should not feel as though she has also lost control of her course of treatment. 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 six days to about two to three days. Thousands of women across the country are undergoing radical mastectomies on an outpatient basis and are being forced out of the hospital before either they or their doctor think it's reasonable or prudent. This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients, and all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate and necessary medical care. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work towards passing it this year.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, in reintroducing the Medication Errors Reduction Act, which will serve to improve the quality of health care delivered in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities by reducing medical errors. The lack of quality assurances in America's health care system has been documented many times. We believe this bill is the first step in the process to correct this troubling circumstance and to ensure that the American health system is the world's safest. We first began development of this legislation in 2001, following the release of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report ``To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' We were prompted by the startling revelations contained in the report that showed up to 98,000 people per year lose their lives because of a medical error and the annual financial impact that results from these mistakes is believed to be as high as $29 billion. As you might imagine, a medical error can be many things, but the Institute defines it as ``the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim.'' The Institute sites among the problems that commonly occur during the course of providing health care--adverse drug events and improper transfusions, surgical injuries and wrong-site surgery, suicides, restraint-related injuries or death, falls, burns, pressure ulcers and mistaken patient identities. All of these can have tragic endings, but all are preventable. In developing the solution, we looked to incentives that would prompt hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to utilize technology to identify inaccuracies and prevent medical errors before they happen. Senator Graham and I developed a proposal that provides Federal matching funds to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that integrate into their medical systems technology that can prevent medical errors. Technology exists, as never before, that can help identify errors before they happen, and save lives. But this technology is rendered useless if it is not being utilized. That is why the Federal Government must step forward and provide the necessary incentives to prompt innovation. In taking this step, we believe it is imperative that the Federal Government invest time and funding in not just identifying the solution, but to provide the means to implement the solution. It is the role of the Federal Government to lead, and I believe that providing grant funding to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to integrate technology into their health care delivery systems will in fact provide the necessary leadership to see this idea become a reality. More specifically, the grants provided by this legislation can be used to purchase or improve computer software and hardware, and provide education and training to staff on computer patient safety programs. They also may be used to improve patient safety at every stage of the medication delivery process through: electronic prescribing systems that can intercept errors at the time medications are ordered; electronic medical records to alert doctors to possible drug interactions and complications related to the patient's medical history; automated pharmacy dispensing to make sure the nurse receives the correct medication in the correct dosage for the correct patient; and bedside verification--using bar codes on patient wristbands and the medications to ensure that the right medication is administered to the right patient at the right time. Further, we direct the funding to hospitals that serve predominately patients who receive insurance coverage through Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP. And to ensure that all hospitals, especially those in rural communities that have smaller operating margins, can afford to utilize this innovative new program, we set aside 20 percent of the funding for rural hospitals. I believe this is an important and necessary step to protect our rural communities and provide families with the highest quality care. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we soon will be able to reduce the number of Americans who are harmed by medical errors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friends, Senator Murray of Washington and Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Feinstein of California, as original cosponsors of this bill. This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that appropriate medical care determines how long a woman stays in the hospital after undergoing a mastectomy--not a predetermined amount of time legislated by Congress. This provision says that inpatient coverage with respect to the treatment of mastectomy, lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection--regardless of whether the patient's plan is regulated by ERISA or State regulations--will be provided for a period of time as is determined by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically necessary and appropriate. Second, this bill allows any person facing a cancer diagnosis of any type to get a second opinion on their course of treatment. A diagnosis of breast cancer is something that every woman dreads. But for an estimated 192,020 American women, this is the year their worst fears will be realized. One thousand new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed among the women in Maine, and 200 women in my home State will die from this tragic disease. The fact is, one in nine women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and for women between the ages of 35 and 54, there is no other disease which will claim more lives. It's not hard to understand why the words ``you have breast cancer'' are some of the most frightening words in the English language. For the woman who hears them, everything changes from that moment forward. No wonder, then, that it is a diagnosis not only accompanied by fear, but also by uncertainty. What will become of me? What will they have to do to me? What will I have to endure? What's the next step? For many women, the answer to that last question is a mastectomy or lumpectomy. Despite the medical and scientific advances that have been made, despite the advances in early detection technology that more and more often negate the need for radical surgery, it still remains a fact of life at the beginning of the 21st century these procedures can be the most prudent option in attacking and eradicating cancer found in a woman's breast. These are the kind of decisions that come with a breast cancer diagnosis. These are the kind of questions women must answer, and they must do so under some of the most stressful and frightening circumstances imaginable. The last question a woman should have to worry about at a time like this is whether or not their health insurance plan will pay for appropriate care after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, or that she won't be able to remain in a doctor's immediate care for as long as she needs to be. A woman diagnosed with breast cancer in many ways already feels as though she has lost control of her life. She should not feel as though she has also lost control of her course of treatment. 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 six days to about two to three days. Thousands of women across the country are undergoing radical mastectomies on an outpatient basis and are being forced out of the hospital before either they or their doctor think it's reasonable or prudent. This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients, and all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate and necessary medical care. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and work towards passing it this year.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, in reintroducing the Medication Errors Reduction Act, which will serve to improve the quality of health care delivered in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities by reducing medical errors. The lack of quality assurances in America's health care system has been documented many times. We believe this bill is the first step in the process to correct this troubling circumstance and to ensure that the American health system is the world's safest. We first began development of this legislation in 2001, following the release of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report ``To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' We were prompted by the startling revelations contained in the report that showed up to 98,000 people per year lose their lives because of a medical error and the annual financial impact that results from these mistakes is believed to be as high as $29 billion. As you might imagine, a medical error can be many things, but the Institute defines it as ``the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim.'' The Institute sites among the problems that commonly occur during the course of providing health care--adverse drug events and improper transfusions, surgical injuries and wrong-site surgery, suicides, restraint-related injuries or death, falls, burns, pressure ulcers and mistaken patient identities. All of these can have tragic endings, but all are preventable. In developing the solution, we looked to incentives that would prompt hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to utilize technology to identify inaccuracies and prevent medical errors before they happen. Senator Graham and I developed a proposal that provides Federal matching funds to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities that integrate into their medical systems technology that can prevent medical errors. Technology exists, as never before, that can help identify errors before they happen, and save lives. But this technology is rendered useless if it is not being utilized. That is why the Federal Government must step forward and provide the necessary incentives to prompt innovation. In taking this step, we believe it is imperative that the Federal Government invest time and funding in not just identifying the solution, but to provide the means to implement the solution. It is the role of the Federal Government to lead, and I believe that providing grant funding to hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to integrate technology into their health care delivery systems will in fact provide the necessary leadership to see this idea become a reality. More specifically, the grants provided by this legislation can be used to purchase or improve computer software and hardware, and provide education and training to staff on computer patient safety programs. They also may be used to improve patient safety at every stage of the medication delivery process through: electronic prescribing systems that can intercept errors at the time medications are ordered; electronic medical records to alert doctors to possible drug interactions and complications related to the patient's medical history; automated pharmacy dispensing to make sure the nurse receives the correct medication in the correct dosage for the correct patient; and bedside verification--using bar codes on patient wristbands and the medications to ensure that the right medication is administered to the right patient at the right time. Further, we direct the funding to hospitals that serve predominately patients who receive insurance coverage through Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIP. And to ensure that all hospitals, especially those in rural communities that have smaller operating margins, can afford to utilize this innovative new program, we set aside 20 percent of the funding for rural hospitals. I believe this is an important and necessary step to protect our rural communities and provide families with the highest quality care. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we soon will be able to reduce the number of Americans who are harmed by medical errors.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, chairman of the committee, whose guidance throughout this process ultimately culminated in this most significant piece of legislation. I express my appreciation to him and to the Senate majority leader, without whose leadership this legislation would not be possible, and to the Democratic leader as well, and to Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and, of course, Senator Jeffords, who sponsored this effort with me some 7 to 8 years ago. I also acknowledge the presence of Representative Slaughter from New York who has led the effort in the House for approximately 8 years at this point. This is the culmination of bipartisan efforts over the last 8 years and over the last 2 years of bipartisan negotiations where we were able to merge the differences between the legislation that I introduced and that was introduced by Senators Daschle and Kennedy. The fact is, since April of 1996, when I first introduced the Genetic Nondiscrimination Health Insurance Act, science has continued to hurdle forward, further opening the door to early detection and medical intervention through the discovery and identification of specific genes linked to diseases such as breast cancer, colon cancer, cystic fibrosis, and Huntington's disease. That 1996 legislation recognized that with the progress in the field of genetics accelerating at a breathtaking pace, we needed to ensure that with the scientific advances to come, we would advance the treatment and prevention of disease without advancing a new basis for discrimination. Certainly everything changed with the unveiling of the first working draft of our entire genetic code. It became all the more imperative that we respond with legislation that would at once allow the tremendous promise of this breakthrough while at the same time protect the American people from the dark side of discrimination. Because there has been so many other scientific advancements this carried with it, not only the prospect of scientific and medical discoveries, such as improved detection and earlier intervention, but also the potential for harm and abuse, every day since--absent enactment of this type of legislation--has been a day we have left the full potential of the human genome untapped. This is no solution in search of a problem. To the contrary, the very real fear of repercussions from one's genetic makeup was specifically brought home to me through the real-life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. Bonnie wrote to me about the fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer. She was in a family who had nine members with breast cancer. She herself is a survivor. She feared having the BRCA test because she worried it would ruin her daughter's ability to obtain health insurance in the future. I ask that everybody support this legislation because, clearly, this is one of the most significant groundbreaking pieces of legislation we could have in the area of medical health care.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Pryor and Senator Bond, as sponsors of this bill. The genesis of this legislation was a proposal made by the Small Business Administration. When the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request was transmitted to the Congress this past February, it stated that the SBA was exploring a possible new approach to expand the opportunities of small businesses to access capital markets by facilitating the securitization of non-SBA small business loans, i.e., loans that were not already guaranteed by the SBA. Increasing access to capital is a high priority of small businesses, and has been one of the Committee's priorities throughout its history. We are always seeking innovative ways to increase access to capital for small businesses, while at the same time measuring the cost and risk of loss that the Federal government must incur to facilitate such financing. Accordingly, we recognized the potential benefits of this proposal for small businesses across the Nation. At our roundtable on April 30, 2003, the Committee discussed the idea of the securitization of non-SBA small business loans. The SBA reported that it had been exploring this type of program for some time and thought the idea had considerable merit. The agency was uncertain, however, whether it had the statutory authority to develop and implement such a program, absent legislative authorization. After the roundtable, we consulted with the SBA and with participants in the small business financing industry to determine the program's appropriate elements. In addition to the support the SBA expressed for the proposal in its budget request, at the Committee's roundtable, and in subsequent discussions with Committee staff, the SBA took other steps to help make the proposal a success. For example, the agency entered into a contract with Dun & Bradstreet and with Fair, Isaacs, Co., to create a credit scoring model for small businesses, similar to individual consumer credit scores, to help small businesses gauge their credit quality. The scoring model will be an important asset to the pooling proposal by providing uniformity of pricing, thus reducing one obstacle to the securitization of non-SBA small business loans. The Office of Advocacy of the SBA has also helped build support for the proposal by publicizing the need to take the foundational steps to build a secondary market for small business loans, rather than later trying to create such a market in one step when economic pressures called for an immediate response. Support for a program to securitize small business loans has also been advocated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In its September 2002 Report to the Congress on the Availability of Credit to Small Businesses, the Federal Reserve stated that the securitization of small business loans could ``substantially influence the availability of credit'' to small businesses. The Federal Reserve noted that one primary benefit of a secondary market would be that small business borrowers could enjoy lower financing costs. In addition to the Federal Reserve report, other studies have shown that small businesses could benefit from an efficient secondary market for small business loans. Several, including the Federal Reserve report, have noted that a primary obstacle to a wide-spread secondary market for small business loans has been the lack of standardized information to evaluate and price small business loans efficiently for resale. As noted, the SBA has exercised foresight by securing the contract with Dun & Bradstreet and Fair, Isaacs to address this problem. With the information provided by this new credit-scoring model, the securitization of non-SBA small business loans will be far more feasible. With input from the SBA, small businesses, and financial firms in hand, and having considered many studies regarding small business credit and the effectiveness of secondary markets, we included a provision similar to this Act in S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, which was approved unanimously by the Committee on July 10, 2003. Working with Senator Pryor and with other colleagues, we endeavored to provide sufficient specificity in the instructions the legislation gives the SBA regarding the pilot program, so as to ensure that the pooling proposal provides the greatest benefit to small businesses in need of capital while limiting risk to the Federal government. Unfortunately, despite all the hard work and input from the SBA and from other participants in the small business financing industry, some apparently either failed to recognize or understand the benefits for small businesses that exist in this idea that originated with the SBA. In the interest of expediting the passage of S. 1375 before the SBA's authorizing legislation expired, I reluctantly removed that provision from S. 1375 to focus on those elements of the bill that had to be enacted before the legislation expired. I continue to appreciate the benefits of this proposal, and I am now introducing this provision as a separate bill. With the support this proposal already has, I am confident we can implement this innovative program, and I look forward to the benefits it can provide as we try to assist small businesses to prosper, create more jobs, and pull the economy out of its current doldrums. The Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003 authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop and implement an innovative three-year pilot program to facilitate the securitization of small business loans in order to increase the liquidity of capital available to small businesses. Under the pilot program, the SBA could provide partial guarantees on pools of securitized small business loans that are not otherwise guaranteed by the SBA. The legislation seeks to increase capital available to small businesses, without creating additional risk for the government since the SBA's guarantees would be paid for by fees charged to the financial firms administering the pooling of loans, and thus no appropriations will be necessary. I believe this pilot program has a great potential to provide increased access to capital on terms that are beneficial to small businesses. The pilot program will also allow lenders, including small lenders such as community banks, to utilize their capital better, and make more loans available to small businesses on better terms, by increasing the liquidity of existing loans. The pooling structure is based on similar arrangements for home mortgages, credit card loans, and car loans, which have active secondary markets based upon their pooling and securitization. The increased liquidity of loans provided by a secondary market allows lenders to be confident that the loans they make can be sold to investors, so that the lenders can utilize again capital that is otherwise locked into existing loans. In addition, because lenders receive a quick ``turnaround'' on the loans that they make and then sell to investors, the profit that the lenders receive from the interest rates charged to borrowers becomes less important for the lenders, who can receive a smaller per-loan profit, but increase the number of loans they make, and thereby receive a greater profit. Lenders are thus able to make more loans and to provide better terms to borrowers on those loans. As Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I realize that access to credit for small businesses is often a challenge. The Committee has consistently found that encouraging more lending to small businesses that have a likelihood to succeed, grow, and create new jobs is a sound national policy. The pilot program takes advantage of the successful example of the prior securitizations of SBA small business loans, and of changes in the investment community, to facilitate lending in the small business community for years to come. This pilot program is not a departure from the SBA's current practice of guaranteeing loans and regulating the securitization of those loans. The SBA already regulates the securitization of both guaranteed portions of 7(a) and 504 loans to small businesses and non-guaranteed portions of the same loans. These loans are made both by Federally- regulated lenders and by lenders that are not federally regulated. In Fiscal Year 2002, the SBA regulated the securitization of $3.4 billion in government-guaranteed 7(a) loans to small businesses. When the guaranteed portions of the 7(a) loans are securitized separately from the non-guaranteed portions, the SBA is guaranteeing 100 percent of the loan pools. This bill authorizes a pilot program with a much more modest SBA involvement than is represented by the SBA's current financing programs. Under the pilot program, financial firms approved by the SBA would pool loans not individually guaranteed by the SBA. These pooling entities would then issue securities offering returns based upon the returns from the loans in the pool. The securities would be rated by a rating agency and sold to investors. The pooling entities, also known as ``loan poolers,'' would also offer a partial ``first-loss'' guarantee to investors on the securities' returns. If the loans had insufficient returns to pay the expected returns on the securities, the pooling entities' guarantees would be the first guarantees called into performance to pay investors. The SBA would issue partial, not complete, ``second-loss'' guarantees on the return from the securities, but not on individual loans within the pool. The agency's guarantees would thus be available only after the first-loss guarantees offered by the loan poolers are exhausted. Significantly, the cost of the SBA guarantees will be fully funded by fees paid by the loan poolers, so no Federal appropriations will be necessary. The bill provides that the SBA will adjust the fees required from the poolers under the pilot program annually, as necessary. The legislation also includes other provisions to ensure that the pilot program will not lead to increased risk or liability for the government. In particular, it caps the SBA's guarantees on any loan pool at a maximum of 25 percent of the value of the securities issued for that loan pool. In contrast, the SBA's guarantees for the 7(a) and 504 loan programs are as high as 90 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of each loan in those programs. Moreover, in the 504 loan program the SBA is in a first-loss position, sustaining the loss of its full guaranteed amount on a defaulted loan before the private lender incurs any loss, whereas in the pilot program the SBA will be in a second-loss position. In addition, the bill requires that firms licensed as loan poolers adhere to certain standards, such as being well-capitalized and maintaining sufficient reserves. The bill also provides that the SBA will set standards for the licensed poolers and will review these entities annually to verify that they are conforming with SBA requirements. Among the requirements the SBA would establish for such loan poolers would be standards relating to loan delinquency, default, liquidation, and loss rates. If any licensed loan pooler fails to meet the SBA's standards, the SBA may terminate the pooler's participation in the pilot program. To ensure that the pilot program is initially implemented on a manageable scale, the legislation specifies that no individual loan pool created by a licensed pooler will exceed $350 million in loans in fiscal year 2004, $400 million in loans in fiscal year 2005, or $450 million in loans in fiscal year 2006. The bill also specifies that the SBA's total guarantees under the pilot program will not exceed $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2004, $3.25 billion for fiscal year 2005, or $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2006. Finally, this legislation requires three separate types of reports to ensure that the pilot program is properly monitored and evaluated. First, the SBA must provide to the Senate and House Committees on Small Business a report detailing the pooling program before it is implemented, and wait 50 days after submitting the report before implementing the program. In addition, the SBA must file with the Congress, in the SBA's Budget Request and Performance Plan, an annual report about the program's performance. To strengthen the on-going oversight of the pilot program, the bill also specifies that the SBA's annual report to Congress will include information about the pooled loans, including delinquency, default, loss, and recovery rates. Third, the GAO is required to study the program once implemented, and report on the program's performance, including any effects the program may have on the 504 or 7(a) programs, before calendar year 2006. My Small Business Committee has received expressions of support for the pilot program from representatives of thousands of small businesses that believe the program could improve access to capital, and could improve the terms of loans received, for many small businesses, particularly those without significant real estate property to use as collateral. In particular, support for the program has been expressed by minority-owned small businesses and by women-owned small businesses. For these small businesses, which often have less real estate collateral than other small businesses, this pilot program holds great potential for creating capital resources to meet their financing needs. For instance, a recent study by the SBA's Office of Advocacy, issued in September 2003, reveals that small businesses owned by women are more likely than other small businesses to rely on expensive personal credit cards to finance the business, rather than more traditional types of loans. For these small businesses, an increase in the availability of traditional business loans, with lower financing costs and on terms beneficial to the borrowers, would be a welcome development. In addition, the same study showed that minority-owned small businesses, in addition to being less likely than other small businesses to obtain credit, were far less likely to obtain their credit from traditional Federally regulated depository institutions, and were more likely to resort to financing their businesses through sources such as family, friends, and acquaintances of the business owners. While this bill does not address subjective lender behavior, it does address the objective cost/profit opportunity presented to a lender by a loan to a small business, including a minority-owned or women-owned small business. If a lender is able to sell a conventional small business loan in an efficient secondary market, the potential downside cost of the loan to the lender, e.g., its default risk, is decreased, and the lender is assured that its capital will still be available for other loans. Financial firms currently involved in the pooling and securitization of loans issued in the SBA's two primary loan guaranty programs, under Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (``7(a) loans'') and under Section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (``504 loans''), have also expressed their support for the program, and have stated their belief that it will increase small businesses' access to effective capital. In closing, the Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003 is an innovative approach to a persistent problem for small businesses in this country--access to capital. I believe it has the potential to address this problem for small businesses with effectively no risk to the Federal Government. At a time when our small enterprises are helping to lead the country back onto the road to economic recovery, we should be doing all we can to eliminate obstacles facing small businesses, which hold the greatest potential for job creation in America today. This bill is an important step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provision be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003, and I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Pryor and Senator Bond, as sponsors of this bill. The genesis of this legislation was a proposal made by the Small Business Administration. When the President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request was transmitted to the Congress this past February, it stated that the SBA was exploring a possible new approach to expand the opportunities of small businesses to access capital markets by facilitating the securitization of non-SBA small business loans, i.e., loans that were not already guaranteed by the SBA. Increasing access to capital is a high priority of small businesses, and has been one of the Committee's priorities throughout its history. We are always seeking innovative ways to increase access to capital for small businesses, while at the same time measuring the cost and risk of loss that the Federal government must incur to facilitate such financing. Accordingly, we recognized the potential benefits of this proposal for small businesses across the Nation. At our roundtable on April 30, 2003, the Committee discussed the idea of the securitization of non-SBA small business loans. The SBA reported that it had been exploring this type of program for some time and thought the idea had considerable merit. The agency was uncertain, however, whether it had the statutory authority to develop and implement such a program, absent legislative authorization. After the roundtable, we consulted with the SBA and with participants in the small business financing industry to determine the program's appropriate elements. In addition to the support the SBA expressed for the proposal in its budget request, at the Committee's roundtable, and in subsequent discussions with Committee staff, the SBA took other steps to help make the proposal a success. For example, the agency entered into a contract with Dun & Bradstreet and with Fair, Isaacs, Co., to create a credit scoring model for small businesses, similar to individual consumer credit scores, to help small businesses gauge their credit quality. The scoring model will be an important asset to the pooling proposal by providing uniformity of pricing, thus reducing one obstacle to the securitization of non-SBA small business loans. The Office of Advocacy of the SBA has also helped build support for the proposal by publicizing the need to take the foundational steps to build a secondary market for small business loans, rather than later trying to create such a market in one step when economic pressures called for an immediate response. Support for a program to securitize small business loans has also been advocated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In its September 2002 Report to the Congress on the Availability of Credit to Small Businesses, the Federal Reserve stated that the securitization of small business loans could ``substantially influence the availability of credit'' to small businesses. The Federal Reserve noted that one primary benefit of a secondary market would be that small business borrowers could enjoy lower financing costs. In addition to the Federal Reserve report, other studies have shown that small businesses could benefit from an efficient secondary market for small business loans. Several, including the Federal Reserve report, have noted that a primary obstacle to a wide-spread secondary market for small business loans has been the lack of standardized information to evaluate and price small business loans efficiently for resale. As noted, the SBA has exercised foresight by securing the contract with Dun & Bradstreet and Fair, Isaacs to address this problem. With the information provided by this new credit-scoring model, the securitization of non-SBA small business loans will be far more feasible. With input from the SBA, small businesses, and financial firms in hand, and having considered many studies regarding small business credit and the effectiveness of secondary markets, we included a provision similar to this Act in S. 1375, the Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003, which was approved unanimously by the Committee on July 10, 2003. Working with Senator Pryor and with other colleagues, we endeavored to provide sufficient specificity in the instructions the legislation gives the SBA regarding the pilot program, so as to ensure that the pooling proposal provides the greatest benefit to small businesses in need of capital while limiting risk to the Federal government. Unfortunately, despite all the hard work and input from the SBA and from other participants in the small business financing industry, some apparently either failed to recognize or understand the benefits for small businesses that exist in this idea that originated with the SBA. In the interest of expediting the passage of S. 1375 before the SBA's authorizing legislation expired, I reluctantly removed that provision from S. 1375 to focus on those elements of the bill that had to be enacted before the legislation expired. I continue to appreciate the benefits of this proposal, and I am now introducing this provision as a separate bill. With the support this proposal already has, I am confident we can implement this innovative program, and I look forward to the benefits it can provide as we try to assist small businesses to prosper, create more jobs, and pull the economy out of its current doldrums. The Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003 authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop and implement an innovative three-year pilot program to facilitate the securitization of small business loans in order to increase the liquidity of capital available to small businesses. Under the pilot program, the SBA could provide partial guarantees on pools of securitized small business loans that are not otherwise guaranteed by the SBA. The legislation seeks to increase capital available to small businesses, without creating additional risk for the government since the SBA's guarantees would be paid for by fees charged to the financial firms administering the pooling of loans, and thus no appropriations will be necessary. I believe this pilot program has a great potential to provide increased access to capital on terms that are beneficial to small businesses. The pilot program will also allow lenders, including small lenders such as community banks, to utilize their capital better, and make more loans available to small businesses on better terms, by increasing the liquidity of existing loans. The pooling structure is based on similar arrangements for home mortgages, credit card loans, and car loans, which have active secondary markets based upon their pooling and securitization. The increased liquidity of loans provided by a secondary market allows lenders to be confident that the loans they make can be sold to investors, so that the lenders can utilize again capital that is otherwise locked into existing loans. In addition, because lenders receive a quick ``turnaround'' on the loans that they make and then sell to investors, the profit that the lenders receive from the interest rates charged to borrowers becomes less important for the lenders, who can receive a smaller per-loan profit, but increase the number of loans they make, and thereby receive a greater profit. Lenders are thus able to make more loans and to provide better terms to borrowers on those loans. As Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I realize that access to credit for small businesses is often a challenge. The Committee has consistently found that encouraging more lending to small businesses that have a likelihood to succeed, grow, and create new jobs is a sound national policy. The pilot program takes advantage of the successful example of the prior securitizations of SBA small business loans, and of changes in the investment community, to facilitate lending in the small business community for years to come. This pilot program is not a departure from the SBA's current practice of guaranteeing loans and regulating the securitization of those loans. The SBA already regulates the securitization of both guaranteed portions of 7(a) and 504 loans to small businesses and non-guaranteed portions of the same loans. These loans are made both by Federally- regulated lenders and by lenders that are not federally regulated. In Fiscal Year 2002, the SBA regulated the securitization of $3.4 billion in government-guaranteed 7(a) loans to small businesses. When the guaranteed portions of the 7(a) loans are securitized separately from the non-guaranteed portions, the SBA is guaranteeing 100 percent of the loan pools. This bill authorizes a pilot program with a much more modest SBA involvement than is represented by the SBA's current financing programs. Under the pilot program, financial firms approved by the SBA would pool loans not individually guaranteed by the SBA. These pooling entities would then issue securities offering returns based upon the returns from the loans in the pool. The securities would be rated by a rating agency and sold to investors. The pooling entities, also known as ``loan poolers,'' would also offer a partial ``first-loss'' guarantee to investors on the securities' returns. If the loans had insufficient returns to pay the expected returns on the securities, the pooling entities' guarantees would be the first guarantees called into performance to pay investors. The SBA would issue partial, not complete, ``second-loss'' guarantees on the return from the securities, but not on individual loans within the pool. The agency's guarantees would thus be available only after the first-loss guarantees offered by the loan poolers are exhausted. Significantly, the cost of the SBA guarantees will be fully funded by fees paid by the loan poolers, so no Federal appropriations will be necessary. The bill provides that the SBA will adjust the fees required from the poolers under the pilot program annually, as necessary. The legislation also includes other provisions to ensure that the pilot program will not lead to increased risk or liability for the government. In particular, it caps the SBA's guarantees on any loan pool at a maximum of 25 percent of the value of the securities issued for that loan pool. In contrast, the SBA's guarantees for the 7(a) and 504 loan programs are as high as 90 percent and 40 percent, respectively, of each loan in those programs. Moreover, in the 504 loan program the SBA is in a first-loss position, sustaining the loss of its full guaranteed amount on a defaulted loan before the private lender incurs any loss, whereas in the pilot program the SBA will be in a second-loss position. In addition, the bill requires that firms licensed as loan poolers adhere to certain standards, such as being well-capitalized and maintaining sufficient reserves. The bill also provides that the SBA will set standards for the licensed poolers and will review these entities annually to verify that they are conforming with SBA requirements. Among the requirements the SBA would establish for such loan poolers would be standards relating to loan delinquency, default, liquidation, and loss rates. If any licensed loan pooler fails to meet the SBA's standards, the SBA may terminate the pooler's participation in the pilot program. To ensure that the pilot program is initially implemented on a manageable scale, the legislation specifies that no individual loan pool created by a licensed pooler will exceed $350 million in loans in fiscal year 2004, $400 million in loans in fiscal year 2005, or $450 million in loans in fiscal year 2006. The bill also specifies that the SBA's total guarantees under the pilot program will not exceed $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2004, $3.25 billion for fiscal year 2005, or $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2006. Finally, this legislation requires three separate types of reports to ensure that the pilot program is properly monitored and evaluated. First, the SBA must provide to the Senate and House Committees on Small Business a report detailing the pooling program before it is implemented, and wait 50 days after submitting the report before implementing the program. In addition, the SBA must file with the Congress, in the SBA's Budget Request and Performance Plan, an annual report about the program's performance. To strengthen the on-going oversight of the pilot program, the bill also specifies that the SBA's annual report to Congress will include information about the pooled loans, including delinquency, default, loss, and recovery rates. Third, the GAO is required to study the program once implemented, and report on the program's performance, including any effects the program may have on the 504 or 7(a) programs, before calendar year 2006. My Small Business Committee has received expressions of support for the pilot program from representatives of thousands of small businesses that believe the program could improve access to capital, and could improve the terms of loans received, for many small businesses, particularly those without significant real estate property to use as collateral. In particular, support for the program has been expressed by minority-owned small businesses and by women-owned small businesses. For these small businesses, which often have less real estate collateral than other small businesses, this pilot program holds great potential for creating capital resources to meet their financing needs. For instance, a recent study by the SBA's Office of Advocacy, issued in September 2003, reveals that small businesses owned by women are more likely than other small businesses to rely on expensive personal credit cards to finance the business, rather than more traditional types of loans. For these small businesses, an increase in the availability of traditional business loans, with lower financing costs and on terms beneficial to the borrowers, would be a welcome development. In addition, the same study showed that minority-owned small businesses, in addition to being less likely than other small businesses to obtain credit, were far less likely to obtain their credit from traditional Federally regulated depository institutions, and were more likely to resort to financing their businesses through sources such as family, friends, and acquaintances of the business owners. While this bill does not address subjective lender behavior, it does address the objective cost/profit opportunity presented to a lender by a loan to a small business, including a minority-owned or women-owned small business. If a lender is able to sell a conventional small business loan in an efficient secondary market, the potential downside cost of the loan to the lender, e.g., its default risk, is decreased, and the lender is assured that its capital will still be available for other loans. Financial firms currently involved in the pooling and securitization of loans issued in the SBA's two primary loan guaranty programs, under Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (``7(a) loans'') and under Section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (``504 loans''), have also expressed their support for the program, and have stated their belief that it will increase small businesses' access to effective capital. In closing, the Small Business Credit Liquidity Act of 2003 is an innovative approach to a persistent problem for small businesses in this country--access to capital. I believe it has the potential to address this problem for small businesses with effectively no risk to the Federal Government. At a time when our small enterprises are helping to lead the country back onto the road to economic recovery, we should be doing all we can to eliminate obstacles facing small businesses, which hold the greatest potential for job creation in America today. This bill is an important step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provision be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the statement and efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, on behalf of the Essential Air Service, EAS, program. Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of EAS, which provides subsidized air service to 125 small communities in the country, including four in Maine--Augusta, Rockland, Bar Harbor and Presque Isle--that would otherwise be cut off from the nation's air transportation network. As approved in May by the Senate Commerce Committee, the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill reauthorized and flat-funded the program for 3 years, and includes certain changes to the program, which are drastically scaled back from what the Administration proposed earlier this year for EAS ``reform.'' The Administration had called for EAS towns to provide up to 25 percent matching contributions to keep their air service. The Commerce Committee bill creates a number of new programs to help EAS communities grow their ridership, including a marketing incentive program that would financially reward EAS towns for achieving ridership goals. With regard to local cost-sharing--the centerpiece of the Administration's EAS proposal--the Commerce bill would create a pilot program to allow for a 10 percent annual community match at no more than 10 airports within 100 miles of a large airport. While the cost-sharing provisions in the committee bill are much less strict than the Administration proposal, and could only be applied to a EAS community under certain specific conditions, I remain concerned about the concept of requiring EAS towns--some of which are cash- strapped and economically depressed--from kicking in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to keep their air service. For example, if Augusta or Rockland, ME, were to be chosen for the cost-sharing pilot program, they would have to come up with more than $120,000 annually to retain their air service. As such, on the floor I supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to strike the cost-sharing section from the bill and was pleased when it was approved unanimously by the full Senate. The House adopted an identical amendment offered by Representative Peterson. And I felt so strongly about this issue that in late July I circulated a letter to the FAA conferees, signed by 15 other Senators, expressing strong opposition to having mandatory EAS cost-sharing language in the final legislative package. As such, I was extremely disappointed when that same language found itself into the FAA conference report issued on July 25. Mr. President, the EAS program is not perfect, and Congress certainly needs to do all we can to keep the costs and subsidy levels associated with the program as low as possible. I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee and the Senate on the issue, but I continue to believe that requiring cost-sharing in today's economy and today's aviation environment is clearly a wrong-headed approach. I also wanted to take this opportunity to address the larger issue of the importance of air service to America's small communities. As we work to address the vital aviation issues facing the country, we cannot forget the challenges that small communities in Maine, and throughout the Nation, face in attracting and retaining air service. I have always believed that adequate, reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. And quite frankly, I have serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small- and medium-sized cities in rural areas, like Maine. The fact is, since deregulation, many of these communities in Maine, and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. Many air carriers are experiencing an unprecedented financial crisis, and the first routes on the chopping block will be those to small- and medium-sized communities. This will only increase demand for the two existing Federal forms of assistance, EAS and the Small Community Air Service Grant Program. In short, when considering this legislation, I believe that we need to do all we can to help small communities maintain their access to the national transportation system during these difficult times. Mandatory EAS cost-sharing would have the opposite effect, and I hope that the conferees strip it out should the bill be recommitted to conference.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2003, and to be joined by Senators Smith, Leahy, Warner, Bunning, and Jack Reed. This bill permanently authorizes the National Oilheat Research Alliance, commonly referred to as NORA, which was created by a referendum of oilheat retailers and wholesalers in February of 2001. I was proud to sponsor the Senate bill that originally authorized the creation of NORA during the 106th Congress, and I am pleased to report that during its almost three years of existence, NORA has proved an unqualified success. Its activities have created genuine, tangible benefits for the heating oil industry and its consumers in the areas of research, education, safety and training, as well as providing information about the industry to existing and potential customers. This bill is necessary because the original authorization statute for NORA included a sunset provision that, without congressional action, will force NORA to cease operations four years after its creation. The provision was included to allow Congress to assess its performance and determine whether it deserved continued authorization. It is readily apparent, from its numerous activities and the wide support it enjoys from consumer, environmental, and labor groups, along with the industry itself, that NORA should continue in perpetuity. In a short time, NORA has set the standard for industry-wide cooperative activity with its professionalism, effectiveness, and most importantly, satisfaction from its supporting members. Through its rigorous commitment to activities that benefit all of its members, customers and the public at large, NORA is able to harness the collective strength of its companies and their resources to share cutting-edge technological advances, the latest in training methods, and promising environmental initiatives throughout the industry. Of particular note is the creation of the National Oilheat Research Institute, or NORI, which oversees valuable study as the industry moves toward the introduction of low sulfur heating oil to help reduce the amount of sulfur emissions in the industry. This forward-looking work highlights NORA's genuine commitment to building an environmentally sound oil heat industry. Other research undertaken by NORI includes a thorough, systematic evaluation of the fuel component of the oil heat system to maximize fuel performance--and therefore lower heating costs--for oil heat customers. These and other consumer-friendly activities have won NORA the support of the Consumer Energy Council of America, the oldest public interest energy policy organization in the Nation. In fact, NORA's research and development activities were identified in a report from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which concluded that the NORA program ``will provide economic support to millions of American households by reducing fuel bills, and thousands of small family businesses in the United States who will gain from having satisfied consumers and reduced operating costs.'' NORA is also playing a leading role in continuing education and training for oil heat technicians through the introduction of new and updated training material, creation of a standardized certification program to encourage professional development, partnerships with community colleges to provide equipment for training, and a new website to provide easy access to NORA safety and training material. NORA also understands that new homeowners who buy houses with existing oil heat systems have questions about the best way to make use of and maintain their heating source, and publishes a Homeowner's Guide that describes the cleanliness and efficiency of their system, and offers helpful information for real estate purchasers. This is just a sampling of the many activities taking place in states using oil heat all over the country. Numerous State associations benefit from their partnership with NORA, which supports local and statewide initiatives for the heating oil industry, its customers, and the professionals working within it. Indeed, the Maine Oil Dealers Association has provided me with uniformly positive feedback about its partnership with NORA, including its assistance with development of information brochures and production of safety manuals in both printed and electronic form. I am persuaded that NORA's performance has exceeded all expectation and deserves permanent authorization from the Congress. I look forward to helping make sure that NORA can continue its beneficial activities long into the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 2003, and to be joined by Senators Smith, Leahy, Warner, Bunning, and Jack Reed. This bill permanently authorizes the National Oilheat Research Alliance, commonly referred to as NORA, which was created by a referendum of oilheat retailers and wholesalers in February of 2001. I was proud to sponsor the Senate bill that originally authorized the creation of NORA during the 106th Congress, and I am pleased to report that during its almost three years of existence, NORA has proved an unqualified success. Its activities have created genuine, tangible benefits for the heating oil industry and its consumers in the areas of research, education, safety and training, as well as providing information about the industry to existing and potential customers. This bill is necessary because the original authorization statute for NORA included a sunset provision that, without congressional action, will force NORA to cease operations four years after its creation. The provision was included to allow Congress to assess its performance and determine whether it deserved continued authorization. It is readily apparent, from its numerous activities and the wide support it enjoys from consumer, environmental, and labor groups, along with the industry itself, that NORA should continue in perpetuity. In a short time, NORA has set the standard for industry-wide cooperative activity with its professionalism, effectiveness, and most importantly, satisfaction from its supporting members. Through its rigorous commitment to activities that benefit all of its members, customers and the public at large, NORA is able to harness the collective strength of its companies and their resources to share cutting-edge technological advances, the latest in training methods, and promising environmental initiatives throughout the industry. Of particular note is the creation of the National Oilheat Research Institute, or NORI, which oversees valuable study as the industry moves toward the introduction of low sulfur heating oil to help reduce the amount of sulfur emissions in the industry. This forward-looking work highlights NORA's genuine commitment to building an environmentally sound oil heat industry. Other research undertaken by NORI includes a thorough, systematic evaluation of the fuel component of the oil heat system to maximize fuel performance--and therefore lower heating costs--for oil heat customers. These and other consumer-friendly activities have won NORA the support of the Consumer Energy Council of America, the oldest public interest energy policy organization in the Nation. In fact, NORA's research and development activities were identified in a report from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, which concluded that the NORA program ``will provide economic support to millions of American households by reducing fuel bills, and thousands of small family businesses in the United States who will gain from having satisfied consumers and reduced operating costs.'' NORA is also playing a leading role in continuing education and training for oil heat technicians through the introduction of new and updated training material, creation of a standardized certification program to encourage professional development, partnerships with community colleges to provide equipment for training, and a new website to provide easy access to NORA safety and training material. NORA also understands that new homeowners who buy houses with existing oil heat systems have questions about the best way to make use of and maintain their heating source, and publishes a Homeowner's Guide that describes the cleanliness and efficiency of their system, and offers helpful information for real estate purchasers. This is just a sampling of the many activities taking place in states using oil heat all over the country. Numerous State associations benefit from their partnership with NORA, which supports local and statewide initiatives for the heating oil industry, its customers, and the professionals working within it. Indeed, the Maine Oil Dealers Association has provided me with uniformly positive feedback about its partnership with NORA, including its assistance with development of information brochures and production of safety manuals in both printed and electronic form. I am persuaded that NORA's performance has exceeded all expectation and deserves permanent authorization from the Congress. I look forward to helping make sure that NORA can continue its beneficial activities long into the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I agree with the Senator that attracting new air service and retaining current service to small communities is a critical economic issue. I am also familiar with the GAO report to which he refers, since Senator Wyden and I were two of the three Senate requesters of that report, together with our colleague on the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Rockefeller.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for bringing this to my attention. I am happy to work with the Senator on this issue. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her support of this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. As chair of the Small Business Committee, I am concerned by any interpretation of the Small Business Act that unnecessarily inhibits access to SBA programs and services by eligible small businesses. This interpretation not only affects the ability of small businesses to receive financial assistance under the 7(a) loan program but also to bid on Federal contracts set aside for small businesses. As the economy struggles to recover, it is critical that we get back to business--an investment in small business is an investment in jobs. As we work with our colleagues on the House Small Business Committee to reauthorize the SBA's programs and services, we will carefully consider provisions to address this issue and work with the SBA to find an agreeable solution.

Ms. SNOWE. I am also a strong supporter of the HUBZone program. Today there are more than 8,300 HUBZone small businesses that helped to create more than 30,000 jobs in the last 2 years. In our reauthorization bill, the committee has made some minor changes to strengthen the program. One of these changes would ensure that communities affected by military base closures would receive temporary HUBZone eligibility, preventing a significant economic downturn. The bill also allows HUBZone companies to receive up to 15 percent investment from outside organizations, allowing them to raise capital, expand their business and create even more jobs.