Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

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.

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. 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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma declared the Federal Trade Commission's national Do-Not-Call registry invalid after concluding that the Commission lacked the authority to implement the rule. Today, I stand here with my colleagues to set the record straight--H.R. 3161, which the House passed earlier this morning by a vote of 412-8, provides congressional authorization for the creation and implementation of the Do-Not-Call registry. The Do-Not-Call registry provides a very important service-- preventing undue intrusions from marketers. Citizens should have the right not to be disturbed by unsolicited calls in their own homes and the Do-Not-Call registry empowers citizens to stop these calls. Support for the registry is unprecedented. To date, after only four months, the registry contains over 50 million phone numbers. In Maine alone, over 241,000 phone numbers have been registered and this number is growing everyday. Ultimately, the Federal Trade Commission expects 60 percent of the Nation's households to sign onto the registry potentially blocking eighty percent of telemarketing calls. Specifically, the Federal registry will supplement State Do-Not-Call lists. It works by requiring telemarketers to search the registry every 3 months and synchronize their call lists with the phone numbers on the registry. If you don't want to be disturbed by marketing calls, you simply register online with the FTC or call a toll free number and request that your telephone number be added to the registry. More importantly, this law has enforcement power--a telemarketer who disregards the national Do-Not-Call registry could potentially be fined up to $11,000 for each call. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, drastic times require drastic measures and that's why I stand with my colleagues today in support of S.J. Res. 17, disapproving the FCC's June 2 vote to relax, and in some cases eliminate, the rules that safeguard one of our Nation's most precious possessions, the right of free and diverse exchange of opinion. This decision will pave the way for even greater concentration of media ownership in the hands of a select few and deprive the public to the diversity of viewpoints that are so important to democracy and objective reporting in this country. In response to the FCC's action, Senator Dorgan and I along with seven other colleagues sponsored S.J. Res. 17. This resolution would simply declare the FCC's June 2 rules on media ownership without force or effect and would leave in place the media ownership rules that existed prior to the Commission's decision. With the FCC's June vote on media ownership, the ``deregulatory express'' is out of the station--and we are now on track toward even greater ownership concentration and unfettered consolidation. Now, some have said that, with exponentially more media outlets than ever before, we should have nothing to fear. But while more mouths speaking is good, having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of information nor opinion. The point is the amalgamation of control in media outlets and its impact on content--especially with the overwhelming majority of Americans receiving their news from television and newspapers. We cannot ignore that diversity of discourse in America is an essential underpinning of our society and our democracy. So when it comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets representing 98 percent of the American population--and when reports show that five companies or fewer could control about 60 percent of television households in just the next few years--we should all be very concerned. I know that some have said, well, the process and the outcome of the FCC's media ownership review were essentially preordained by statute and the courts. But the courts never proscribed what the limits should be. Neither did they set a date certain by which the FCC must have concluded its process. What the court did say is that, whatever the limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating they are in the public interest. And what is the best way to determine public interest? It's to go above and beyond in notifying and providing full disclosure to the public and Congress, and aggressively soliciting input from all stakeholders--so the public can be confident the best possible decision has been reached. The FCC failed to do this. With more than 700,000 individuals and groups weighing in against the FCC's rule change, the Commission held only one public hearing on the subject of media ownership, I can't help but think there must be a better way. Let me speak to the FCC's modification of the cross ownership ban, one of the more devastating changes made by the Commission on June 2. Many of us represent States that have communities with only one newspaper, under the new rules the FCC would allow that single remaining paper to be purchased by the dominant television broadcaster in the area. In the context of other FCC rules, the agency recognized that it is bad for local competition to allow 2 of the top 4 broadcast outlets to be consolidated, but in this context, the FCC is allowing the top TV station to buy the top newspaper in almost every media market in the country. Newspapers are one of the most important sources of independent reporting. When the leading TV station gobbles up the paper, what happens to the other TV broadcasters in the market? They simply can't compete at the same level. It seems apparent that the remaining TV stations do less news, or they move to softer news formats. This isn't good for news, this isn't good for democracy. If the FCC had acted to create more voices--perhaps by requiring those broadcasters who want a television-newspaper combination to start a new newspaper rather than just buying one--I could see the wisdom in their decision. Instead, the FCC has acted to reduce the total number of voices in communities all across the country. Some say that the FCC's decision will allow these newspaper/broadcast combinations in over 190 media markets, covering 98 percent of America's population. Since the newspaper/broadcast rule was put in place in 1975, we have already lost two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners. Let me reiterate that: two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners have disappeared since 1975. And somehow we're going to make democracy better by further reducing the number of independent newspaper owners by allowing broadcaster television owners to buy them--it just doesn't make sense. The issue of media ownership goes to the heart of our democracy and the crux of the way in which we form our opinions on other issues of critical importance. We need to be extremely careful that in deregulation we don't undermine diversity in the marketplace of ideas and information. I look forward to continuing my work in this area and urge the public to keep the pressure on Congress to undo the damage unleashed by the FCC on June 2. I ask that my colleagues support S.J. Res. 17.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Dorgan for his remarkable leadership on this most important matter. Drastic times require drastic measures. That is why I stand with my colleagues today in support of this resolution which will help and safeguard one of our most precious possessions--the right of free and diverse exchange of opinions. The decision that has been made by the FCC will no doubt pave the way for even greater concentration of media ownership in the hands of a select few and deprive the public of the diversity of viewpoints that I happen to believe is so essential to democracy and objective reporting in America. The FCC's June vote on media ownership ultimately, as I said in the committee, is truly the ``deregulatory'' express out of the station. Now we are on track toward even greater ownership concentration and unfettered consolidation. Some have said that with exponentially more media outlets than ever before, we should have nothing to fear. While more mouths speaking is good, having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of opinion nor information. The point is the amalgamation of control in media outlets. We cannot ignore the fact that diversity of discourse in America is an essential underpinning. When it comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets representing 98 percent of the American population, and when reports show that 5 companies or fewer control about 60 percent of television households in just the next few years, we should all be very concerned. I know some have said the process and the outcome of the FCC media ownership, as we heard from the FCC Commissioners before the Senate Commerce Committee, were preordained by the statutes and by the courts. The courts did not prescribe what the limits should be. Neither did they set a date certain. Rather, what they said was that whatever the limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating that they are in the public interest. How does one determine what is in the public interest? It is aggressively seeking the input of all stakeholders--not just simply notifying the public, notifying the Congress, and that simple disclosure is, in and of itself, sufficient. Absolutely not--not in this unprecedented realm of issues. When we look at the record, what we find is that the FCC only held one public hearing. The committee urged them to conduct a series of public hearings across the country. But they only held one public hearing. Even with one public hearing, the FCC received an unprecedented amount of input from the public when it came to this issue. Even though they did not have the opportunity to participate in public hearings, they sent more than 700,000 e-mails, letters, and calls from across the country. This is unprecedented in the history of the FCC.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this September 11, we pause once again to remember those we so tragically lost in the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and those aboard United Flight 93 2 years ago. For people in all of our States, there are individual connections that bind us to that terrible day. In my home State of Maine, families will again mark a tragic anniversary for the victims they knew and loved: Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, Jacqueline and Robert Norton, James Roux, Robert Schlegel, and Stephen Ward. Today, the greatest tribute we can offer is to remember their names, their lives, and their contributions. They are indelibly branded upon our national consciousness. We feel a pain that will never fade, withstanding even the tempering nature of time. But as we gather around the country on this second anniversary of the attacks, we can see we have been changed permanently, in ways that stand in shining testament to who we are as a nation. More than 150,000 Americans--from my home State of Maine and across the Nation--continue their brave service overseas, on a mission to ensure the freedom of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to reduce the threat of future terrorist attacks worldwide. In Maine and elsewhere, thousands more are working countless hours to enhance our physical security. That vital work continues to this day. Indeed, we are safer than we were 2 years ago because of those efforts--and we must remain ever vigilant, always identifying ways we can do more. But 9/11 has had an impact on our society that is perhaps less obvious, yet equally powerful. Quite simply, we have witnessed the full force of the indomitable spirit with which this Nation has been blessed. The evidence exists in every town and city in America. We all know countless stories of bravery and of quieter but no less significant acts of kindness and compassion--all the more beautiful when viewed through the prism of such incomprehensible inhumanity as was visited upon us. I cannot help but think of New York City and how her people reacted to the recent blackout. In echoes of 2 year's past, New Yorkers pulled together to face the adversity, relying on each other and looking out for a city that will be forever scared, but also forever proud--and strong. They are changed--not because they were broken but because they are now more united than ever before in the cause of defending that which they love. It is the same for our entire Nation. America's indomitable spirit shines at events in my home State as it does in all of yours. It shines in Portland and Bangor, Lewiston, and Augusta. It shines in many smaller ways. In the town of Freeport, two women began a simple tribute right after 9/11. They would wave flags each morning, and their fellow citizens would acknowledge--honking their horns and waving. Last year on this date, that simple tribute blossomed into a parade of patriotism down Main Street. And this year, they are organizing a weekend-long event, ``The Freeport Freedom Festival.'' Our spirit will shine in innumerable other small but heartfelt gestures we make on this second anniversary, just as it shined when people in Maine and across the country lined up at blood banks and donated millions of dollars and tons of food and equipment in the days after the attacks. It is a spirit fueled by freedom, polished with compassion and burnished by pride in our country and the men and women who are risking their lives to protect ours, both here and abroad. Clearly, even as we have achieved successes, our mission to eradicate terror at its roots--and to secure our homeland--will continue. And just as we did not foresee the tragedies of September 11, 2001, we cannot foretell what will happen next. But we can and must work together to remember those who have come before us, to maintain our collective vigilance in the face of continued threats, and to remind each other of the principles and people in which we believe. By working together to help change the world, we are paying the highest possible honor to the more than 3,000 people who lost their lives on September 11, and to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the fight against terror in the following days and years. It is a tribute that will resonate throughout the freedom-loving world as we remember. And there should be no mistake--we will always remember.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to enhance the security of our Nation's passenger rail network. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, boarding an Amtrak train was little harder than riding the subway--and in some ways it was easier, because you could purchase a ticket on board the train. Those days have passed, as Amtrak now requires photo identification and no longer permits ticket purchases on-board the train. But there has not been a similar change in the screening of baggage. The bill I am introducing today would create a new pilot initiative to screen passengers and carry-on baggage on the Amtrak passenger rail system. In addition, my legislation will examine ways to provide this screening, providing a proportional response that will reassure train passengers and step-up security. As a member of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, I believe that by conducting a limited test of security screening of passengers and carry-on baggage on certain Amtrak routes, we can determine the feasibility of expanding screening to other Amtrak stations. Moreover, by starting with a cross-section of stations throughout the network, we can gain perspective on the expense, the infrastructure, and the personnel who might be needed to bring screening system-wide. This legislation will direct the Department of Transportation to initiate a demonstration project at five of the ten stations with the heaviest passenger traffic. Amtrak would be required to conduct random passenger and carry-on baggage checks or screening at these stations. Under the legislation, the Secretary of Transportation would be given authority to select additional stations in order to determine how screening works at smaller facilities. The bill envisions examination of a variety of X-ray and explosive detection devices, and metal detectors that would help assure safety on Amtrak. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, we have experienced a steep learning curve as a country and as a Congress in our efforts to improve homeland security. As we saw during the drafting and consideration of the airline security bill, the United States has not cornered the market on security innovations and measures--there is much that we can learn from other countries that have faced or addressed the same challenges. For this reason, I am introducing legislation that would require the General Accounting Office (GAO) to initiate a study examining passenger rail security measures that have worked for other regions and countries such as the European Union and Japan. For example, the $15 billion channel tunnel--or ``Chunnel''--linking England to the European continent has been open to train service, for passengers and freight, since 1994 without a major security incident. In 2000 alone, 2.8 million cars, 7.1 million passengers, and 2.9 million tons of freight made the 31 mile journey under the English Channel safely. Security has always been a major concern for the Chunnel and Britain, France, and Eurotunnel, the company operating the tunnel, have made security a top priority without degrading passenger service. In fact, in addition to its private security staff provided by Eurotunnel, the Chunnel is policed by a bi-national force of police, immigration, and customs officers with armed patrols in the British and French terminals. And both the company and the respective government agencies also conduct routine intelligence-led security checks on both passenger and freight vehicles. So I suspect that our friends in Europe, and in Asia, and other regions, may be able to provide valuable insight on how we can improve our rail transportation security. It is my intent with this bill to direct GAO to complete, no later than June 2004, a study of rail transport security measures in other countries in an effort to seek innovative screening procedures and processes and other security measures that may be a benefit to the United States. Subsequently, an assessment of these measures would be provided to Congress. In the hours and days after September 11, Americans discovered we are not alone in this struggle and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that encourages the United States to reach out and learn from others.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk briefly about organic agriculture and to recognize the many thousands of organic farmers from around the Nation who have helped transform this once nascent industry into a thriving and innovative sector of our economy. Today, in particular, I extend my greetings to the many organic producers and retailers who have gathered in Washington, D.C. this week to participate in the annual organic conference. Organic agriculture has come a long way over the past 20 years largely because of the determination and hard work of our Nation's many organic producers. To put this issue in perspective, the amount of organic cropland in the United States has more than doubled in the 1990s, and the annual growth rate of the organic industry in the United States has been greater than 20 percent for the past decade. Sales of organic food and beverages accounted for over $9 billion in 2002 and are expected to exceed $20 billion by 2005. The increase in organic production and sales is a reflection of the profitability and high consumer demand for organic food. While the organic industry would not be where it is today without the efforts of its growers and retailers, Congress has an integral role in ensuring that consumers have confidence in the products they are buying. Many of my colleagues remember that the U.S. Department of Agriculture helped to usher in a new era for the organic industry with the implementation last November of the first ever national organic standards. With these new standards, farmers in my home State of Maine were able to sell their organic products to retailers in other States with confidence that the organic label will be recognized by consumers in those States. Consumers now know that when they buy an organically labeled product, it was produced in a healthy and environmentally friendly manner. From what I heard from farmers in my State over the August recess, I can say that the organic rule has been a tremendous benefit to growers both small and large. In Maine, organic agriculture accounts for an important part of the State's $673 million agriculture-related sales. Several blueberry growers in Downeast Maine have recognized the profitability of organic agriculture and have begun to add organic production. Consumer interest in organic milk has led many dairy farmers to switch to organic milk. Six years ago, only one dairy farmer in Maine produced organic milk--now, such milk accounts for over 10 percent of the State's entire dairy production. These are but a few examples of the success of organic agriculture from my State, demonstrating the enormous potential for growth in the organic sector. Here in Congress, we must continue to help the organic agriculture sector grow. The organic community celebrated the implementation of the national organic rule; however, the continuing success of this rule will depend on Congress' commitment to fund the USDA's National Organic Program. The modest increase for the National Organic Program in the Senate Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill is a step in the right direction. Likewise, investments in organic research and development through the Organic Production and Marketing Data Collection will help the organic industry move forward by leaps and bounds. With organic producers visiting from nearly all 50 States, I hope many of my colleagues will have an opportunity to hear from an organic farmer, rancher, or retailer in their home State. Again, I extend my welcome to all those involved in the national organic conference.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Chile. Congress has a constitutional obligation to formulate U.S. trade policy and through the oversight activity of the Finance Committee, and the active participation of the Congressional Oversight Group, this responsibility is being met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on the Finance Committee in ensuring that Congress is not on the sidelines in the trade debate, even under the fast-track procedures by which these agreements are negotiated and considered here on the Floor. It is well known that I have opposed trade agreements in the past. I did so because I never felt that those agreements struck the proper balance between free and fair trade. Last year, I supported trade promotion authority for the President precisely because it did strike the appropriate balance, and because of this administration's commitment to aggressively enforce our trade laws so that American workers aren't undermined by unfair trade. The two agreements before us today have made substantial progress towards meeting those concerns and they come not a moment too soon, as the success of our economy relies more than ever on fair and freer trade--U.S. exports accounted for one-quarter of U.S. economic growth over the past decade--nearly one in six manufactured products coming off the assembly line goes to a foreign customer and exports support 1 of every 5 manufacturing jobs. Given these facts, it is an understandable concern that the U.S. has been party to only three Free Trade Agreements ever, while there are more than 130 worldwide. Since 1995, the WTO has been notified of 90 such agreements while the U.S. only reached one, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, the European Union has been particularly aggressive, having entered into 27 free trade agreements since 1990 and they are actively negotiating another 15. Why should these facts raise concerns? Because every agreement made without us poses a threat to American jobs. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Chile which signed a free trade agreement with Canada, Argentina and several other nations since 1997. Since that time, the U.S. has lost one-quarter of Chile's import market, while nations entering into trade agreements more than captured our lost share. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, this resulted in the loss of more than $800 million in U.S. exports and 100,000 job opportunities. In the three months since the EU-Chile agreement went into effect, the growth rate of EU exports has expanded 8.6 times as fast as U.S. exports to Chile. This represents a disturbing deterioration of the U.S. share of Chile's market. These numbers represent real jobs for U.S. manufacturers that need new markets for their goods to keep employees working and demonstrates the effect of the U.S. failing to move forward with the implementation of these market access agreements. One industry especially affected was U.S. paper products, which accounted for 30 percent of Chile's imports but has since dropped to only 11 percent after the trade agreements were signed. The market access provisions of the U.S.-Chile FTA provide for the elimination of tariffs on all forest products immediately upon implementation of the agreement, eliminating the 6 percent import tariff on U.S. paper and wood products. Chilean forest products exports, in contrast, already enjoy duty-free access to the U.S. market. Immediate tariff elimination will put U.S. suppliers on equal footing with Chilean producers and with competing suppliers of forest products from Canada and Mercosur countries, and the European Union. Before the Canadian-Chile FTA went into effect, U.S. paper and paperboard exports to Chile amounted to 156,000 metric tons, with a value of $99 million and represented 30 percent of Chilean imports in 1997. However, U.S. exports were only 19,000 metric tons, with a value of $26 million, which represented just 8.3 percent of Chile's paper and paperboard imports last year. As a result of the tariff eliminations in this agreement, the U.S. paper industry will now be able to regain access to the Chilean market. Chilean salmon has been a controversial issue in the past, but recent steps taken by both the Chilean salmon industry and the Maine salmon industry to work jointly on promoting the value of farm-raised salmon has alleviated this concern. The Maine salmon industry supports this agreement, which is monumental considering their past differences with Chile. I have heard from the Maine Aquaculture Association and Maine salmon producers like Heritage Salmon, which support this free trade agreement and look forward to future opportunities in the Chilean market. These two former rival industries have shown a deep understanding of how to evolve in the era of global trade. Recognizing the potential effects on another industry in my state, USTR provided me with unequivocal assurances about its position on the unique concerns of rubber footwear, and New Balance has indicated to me that they are pleased that USTR has shown sufficient sensitivity to this industry in both the Chile and Singapore FTAs. The rubber footwear section of the agreement provides for six annual reductions of 5 percent, followed by three of 10 percent and a final one of 40 percent. This nonlinear phaseout honors Ambassador Zoellick's commitment to me that the unique sensitivity of the rubber footwear industry would be reflected in agreements negotiated under Trade Promotion Authority. Singapore represents Maine's second largest recipient of exports with almost $250 million in 2002, second only to our neighbor to the north. Most of these exports are from the strong semiconductor industry in Maine. I have been told by this industry in my own state that they look forward to the closer economic ties that will be formed under the U.S.- Singapore FTA. I have also heard from The Baker Company in Sanford, ME, which is a manufacturer of state-of-the-art biological safety and research equipment whose 150 employees do everything from research and development, engineering, manufacturing and even sales from their headquarters in Sanford. The Baker Company represents just one of the many small manufacturers across America whose sales to Singapore will benefit from this agreement. Hopefully, the 135 percent growth in Maine exports to Singapore last year alone will continue under this FTA. In addition, it is my hope that these agreements will offer new export opportunities for Maine agriculture. I have been told by Maine potato farmers and the Maine Farm Bureau that they support these agreements. While they would have preferred a more accelerated phase- out of some of the tariffs on agriculture exports to Chile, the industry hopes this agreement will allow Maine potatoes to regain some of their previous market-share in Chile that was lost after the Chilean FTA was signed with Canada. As a result of these two agreements before us today, many industries stand to benefit, including the forest and paper, rubber footwear, salmon, lobster, agriculture, semiconductor, precision manufacturing, and electronic industries of my home state. Therefore, I am optimistic that these two agreements, based on this administration's comprehensive approach to FTA's, are sure to gain strong bipartisan support. Under this administration, the U.S. approach to trade has greatly improved. However, I have several remaining concerns. While I am pleased by some of the steps taken by USTR to address the interests of small businesses, there is much more still to be done. In addition, while the improvements to Trade Adjustment Assistance have been welcome, I still believe we must address the needs of communities that have been negatively impacted by trade, so that retrained workers have new opportunities for employment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these, and other, concerns and to continue our efforts to promote a U.S. trade policy that benefits all Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing legislation addressing the critical issue of bacterial resistance to antibiotics arising from overuse of these valuable drugs in humans and animals. Alexander Fleming's discovery of the antibacterial effects of penicillin in 1929 represented the dawning of a new era in medicine. In the decades after its discovery, penicillin became a miracle drug-- allowing physicians to cure diseases that previously would have been untreatable--and literally saved millions of lives. Antibiotics are crucial in curing a variety of common diseases that could result in severe illness or even death if left untreated. The anthrax attacks after September 11 showed us another need for antibiotics that sadly is a continuing threat in our global community--bioterrorism. Many of us in the Capitol relied on the effective treatment of antibiotics to counteract exposure to the anthrax spores and maintain our health during those weeks and months when our Nation was grieving the horrible impact of terrorism in our homeland. Unfortunately, decades after the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, diseases of bacterial origin remain a real and increasing threat to public health. Overuse of medically important antibiotics in humans and animals promotes resistance in bacteria. Infections caused by resistant bacteria cannot be treated with traditional antibiotics. If left unchecked, the problem of bacterial resistance represents an impending public health crisis. Recogizing the public health threat, Congress already took steps to curb antibiotic overuse in humans by amending the Public Health Service Act and the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act. Unfortunately, the issue of antibiotic overuse in animals has not been addressed in Federal law. We recognize the value of antibiotics in treating disease in humans and animals. Unfortunately, it is common practice to put antibiotics, which are similar or identical to those used in human medicine, in the food or water of healthy animals intended for human consumption to promote these animals' growth and compensate for their unsanitary conditions. This practice poses an environmental threat and jeopardizes the effectiveness of these drugs in treating ill people and animals. Our legislation provides for the phased elimination of nontherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in food animals unless such usage is deemed safe through rigorous scientific evaluation. Foodborne illness affects millions of Americans each year and is estimated to cost the economy up to $35 billion annually in medical expenses and lost productivity alone. Tragically, the worst foodborne illnesses cause thousands of deaths and disproportionally target the very young and the elderly each year in the United States. The impact of foodborne illness in developing countries is even more severe. By itself, the magnitude of this public health hazard necessitates action to ensure the safety of our food supply. I hope the improved data collection and monitoring of antibiotics used in food animals included in our legislation will help provide a more complete picture of the contributing factors to these devastating illnesses. Our legislation provides for research and demonstration grants to colleges and universities to exploit advances in biotechnology and animal science to discover new, safer methods of inexpensive, responsible agricultural productivity. We appreciate the good intentions of the many farmers across our Nation, and our legislation establishes transition funds to help these families and businesses implement changes that will benefit us all. I have received numerous letters from groups and individuals in Maine who were concerned that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture was not being actively addressed by Congress. I appreciate all who took the time to voice their concerns to me. I extend my personal thanks to all who have invested so much time and energy in educating Members of Congress as well as the public on this critical issue. I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation today that will address this crucial issue. I applaud the steps that some businesses have taken voluntarily to discourage use of antibiotics in healthy animals. It is my hope that our legislation as well as the voluntary efforts by businesses across the Nation will help to ensure that we have drugs available that are effective in treating diseases for many years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing legislation addressing the critical issue of bacterial resistance to antibiotics arising from overuse of these valuable drugs in humans and animals. Alexander Fleming's discovery of the antibacterial effects of penicillin in 1929 represented the dawning of a new era in medicine. In the decades after its discovery, penicillin became a miracle drug-- allowing physicians to cure diseases that previously would have been untreatable--and literally saved millions of lives. Antibiotics are crucial in curing a variety of common diseases that could result in severe illness or even death if left untreated. The anthrax attacks after September 11 showed us another need for antibiotics that sadly is a continuing threat in our global community--bioterrorism. Many of us in the Capitol relied on the effective treatment of antibiotics to counteract exposure to the anthrax spores and maintain our health during those weeks and months when our Nation was grieving the horrible impact of terrorism in our homeland. Unfortunately, decades after the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, diseases of bacterial origin remain a real and increasing threat to public health. Overuse of medically important antibiotics in humans and animals promotes resistance in bacteria. Infections caused by resistant bacteria cannot be treated with traditional antibiotics. If left unchecked, the problem of bacterial resistance represents an impending public health crisis. Recogizing the public health threat, Congress already took steps to curb antibiotic overuse in humans by amending the Public Health Service Act and the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act. Unfortunately, the issue of antibiotic overuse in animals has not been addressed in Federal law. We recognize the value of antibiotics in treating disease in humans and animals. Unfortunately, it is common practice to put antibiotics, which are similar or identical to those used in human medicine, in the food or water of healthy animals intended for human consumption to promote these animals' growth and compensate for their unsanitary conditions. This practice poses an environmental threat and jeopardizes the effectiveness of these drugs in treating ill people and animals. Our legislation provides for the phased elimination of nontherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in food animals unless such usage is deemed safe through rigorous scientific evaluation. Foodborne illness affects millions of Americans each year and is estimated to cost the economy up to $35 billion annually in medical expenses and lost productivity alone. Tragically, the worst foodborne illnesses cause thousands of deaths and disproportionally target the very young and the elderly each year in the United States. The impact of foodborne illness in developing countries is even more severe. By itself, the magnitude of this public health hazard necessitates action to ensure the safety of our food supply. I hope the improved data collection and monitoring of antibiotics used in food animals included in our legislation will help provide a more complete picture of the contributing factors to these devastating illnesses. Our legislation provides for research and demonstration grants to colleges and universities to exploit advances in biotechnology and animal science to discover new, safer methods of inexpensive, responsible agricultural productivity. We appreciate the good intentions of the many farmers across our Nation, and our legislation establishes transition funds to help these families and businesses implement changes that will benefit us all. I have received numerous letters from groups and individuals in Maine who were concerned that the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture was not being actively addressed by Congress. I appreciate all who took the time to voice their concerns to me. I extend my personal thanks to all who have invested so much time and energy in educating Members of Congress as well as the public on this critical issue. I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation today that will address this crucial issue. I applaud the steps that some businesses have taken voluntarily to discourage use of antibiotics in healthy animals. It is my hope that our legislation as well as the voluntary efforts by businesses across the Nation will help to ensure that we have drugs available that are effective in treating diseases for many years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. Last week, we passed a Defense appropriations bill that includes $150 million in funding for this program. In the more than 10 years since its inception, I have worked with many of my colleagues to ensure that this groundbreaking program continues to have the strong level of support necessary to give researchers the essential resources they need to discover the keys to curing and preventing breast cancer. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. It accounts for 30 percent of all cancers in women. In the United States in 2002 alone, it is estimated that 203,500 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer while 40,000 women lost their lives to this disease. These women are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our friends. Research toward a cure cannot bring those loved ones back to us, but we hope it will spare thousands of future tragedies and provide hope for women currently struggling with this devastating disease. Earlier this year, as I have for the past several years, I coordinated a letter, along with Senators Leahy and others, requesting that the Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2004 contain $175 million in funding for the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. This letter received the strong bipartisan support of 66 senators. Although budgetary constraints did not permit funding at the requested level, the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill does contain $150 million for this program. Given the challenges of this year's budget, I am pleased that the appropriation bill contains such a strong level of support. The research made possible by the Breast Cancer Research Program may benefit not only the victims of breast cancer but of countless other diseases as well. This program fills a unique role in offering awards that fill gaps in ongoing research and complement initiatives sponsored by other agencies. The program supports research and training awards that promote the investigation of innovative ideas and a strong workforce of scientists in this critical field. In an analysis of this program the Institute of Medicine said: The Program fills a unique niche among public and private funding sources for cancer research. It is not duplicative of other programs and is a promising vehicle for forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the nation's fight against breast cancer. In just over a decade since its inception, the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program already has shown great success. The flexibility of this program helps to maximize the limited resources available. I applaud the strong support of this program and want to stress that the intent of reviewing alternative funding sources is to strengthen breast cancer research efforts and not to affect funding for the current program. I am concerned about any efforts to review or restructure the program that might reduce the effectiveness and vitality of the dynamic research efforts it supports. Much work remains to be done in our quest for the cure, and I will continue my strong support of the Breast Cancer Research Program in years to come. Mr. President, as this bill heads to conference, I urge the conferees to recognize the strong congressional support of this program by, at a minimum, maintaining the Senate funding level. honoring john hardt

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act of 2003. This bill would help develop and formalize an integrated network of ocean observing systems around our Nation's coastlines, thereby fulfilling a critical information need that is essential in marine science, resource management, and maritime transportation and safety. Like other coastal States, Maine has a strong and deep connection to our coastline and oceans. We are highly dependent on the fisheries resources and other essential services provided to us by the sea, and we understand that our lives and livelihoods are firmly rooted in how well we understand and adapt to ocean conditions. While we are able to predict tides and other cyclical changes with some accuracy, our best knowledge of the ocean has basically come through direct experience out on the water in often dangerous conditions--until recently. In 2001, a new era in ocean and coastal observing began when the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS, deployed ten observation buoys in the Gulf of Maine. This prototype system has transformed how we gather information about the ocean and track ocean conditions over time. On the surface, these buoys take measurements of wind speed, wave height, temperature, and--for the first time--fog. Under the water's surface, these buoys measure currents, temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and other key environmental variables. By modifying the instrumentation, other data can be gathered from these platforms. Scientists and seafarers have been gathering this kind of information for decades. What sets the GoMOOS observation buoy system apart from the traditional data gathering approach, however, is that it takes all these ocean and surface condition measurements on an hourly basis through a network of linked buoys, and these real-time measurements can be monitored and accessed by the general public through the internet. Not only do the Gulf of Maine buoys gather more data on more variables, but the unprecedented geographical distribution and greater frequency of these measurements has increased the range and timeliness of our ocean knowledge. By linking this comprehensive information with other data gathering systems and making it accessible via the internet, GoMOOS provides a tremendous public service and fills a critical information need in coastal regions. The need for this type of access to ocean information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. The U.S. coastline spans 95,000 miles, and all States that border our oceans and Great Lakes can and will benefit from this type of service. Ocean and coastal observing systems have been planned or developed for other coastal regions, many in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, state coastal management agencies, universities, and other regional partners. As these systems evolve, they develop different approaches for collecting, managing, processing, and communicating data through their network. As is often the case, however, data from these regional systems are incompatible with data from other regions. When this occurs, we lose a valuable opportunity to link these systems and develop a comprehensive picture of coastal and ocean conditions around the Nation. The Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems Act seeks to solve this problem by coordinating and institutionalizing ocean and coastal observation efforts with the support of the Federal Government. This Act would promote the ongoing development of these regional systems, link them through a network of compatible data systems, and provide a system which anyone could access to better understand and track regional and national ocean and coastal conditions. It would call on the National Ocean Research Leadership Council to design, operate, and improve a nation-wide ocean and coastal observation system, and to coordinate and administer an ocean data research and development program. This Council would plan these activities through a collaborative interagency planning office and carry them out through a joint operations center, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The American public--over half of which lives along our coastlines-- will be very well served through the many uses and applications of this system. Fisheries scientists and managers can use this information to predict ocean conditions related to productivity and incorporate this information into their management system. Fishermen, sailors, Coast Guard search-and-rescue units, the military, and others who venture out on the ocean can better predict sea conditions to know when and where to go out safely, and shippers can transport goods more efficiently. Ocean scientists and regulators can better understand, predict, and rapidly respond to the distribution and impacts of marine pollution. Educators and students can learn more about how and why oceans function as they do. Clearly, anyone who uses and depends upon the ocean stands to benefit from this integrated system. As a coastal State Senator, I am very proud to introduce this bill. I would like to thank my co-sponsors, Senators Kerry, McCain, Hollings, Inouye and Breaux, for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. I must also thank all the dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities that have been instrumental in developing both the grassroots regional observation systems as well as this legislation. Their ongoing commitment gives me confidence that this bill, once enacted, will serve the public well by facilitating better understanding of our nation's oceans and coasts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation Tax Act of 2003, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln, Smith, Breaux, Miller, Chambliss, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Shelby and Craig. The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, future growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value such as development. The loss of a health and strong forest products industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and the environment. The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax treatment by reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture. Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based on the number of years the asset is held. Specifically, the bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50 percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 7.5 percent for most non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations. Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and inflationary gain in timber. Tax bill enacted in 1997 and in 2003 lowered the capital gains rate for individuals, but not for corporations. As a result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 15 percent, while corporations face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical asset. As this difference in rates implies, non-corporate timberland owners receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the disparity that companies face. Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes to taxation. This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to deduct all reforestation expenses in the year such costs are incurred. Currently, only the first $10,000 of reforestation expenses is eligible for a ten percent tax credit and can be amortized over seven years. Eligible reforestation expenses are the initial expenses to establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of equipment used in reforestation. The planning of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, allowing these public lands to be protected. Finally, the bill would notify the passive loss rules for small, closely-held landowners to allow them to deduct normal operating expenses pertaining to management of their timber lands. I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of the our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation Tax Act of 2003, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln, Smith, Breaux, Miller, Chambliss, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Shelby and Craig. The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, future growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more landowners will be forced to sell their land for some other higher economic value such as development. The loss of a health and strong forest products industry will have a long-term negative impact on both the economy and the environment. The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax treatment by reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture. Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based on the number of years the asset is held. Specifically, the bill would change the way that capital gains are calculated for timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting three percent for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be capped at 50 percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 7.5 percent for most non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for corporations. Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and inflationary gain in timber. Tax bill enacted in 1997 and in 2003 lowered the capital gains rate for individuals, but not for corporations. As a result, individuals face a maximum capital gains rate of 15 percent, while corporations face a maximum rate of 35 percent for the identical asset. As this difference in rates implies, non-corporate timberland owners receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the disparity that companies face. Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes to taxation. This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to deduct all reforestation expenses in the year such costs are incurred. Currently, only the first $10,000 of reforestation expenses is eligible for a ten percent tax credit and can be amortized over seven years. Eligible reforestation expenses are the initial expenses to establish a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to care for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of equipment used in reforestation. The planning of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, allowing these public lands to be protected. Finally, the bill would notify the passive loss rules for small, closely-held landowners to allow them to deduct normal operating expenses pertaining to management of their timber lands. I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of the our economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered today by Senator Boxer to repeal the global gag rule. We take up this debate once again during the consideration of the State Department authorization, a bill which governs our country's federally sponsored foreign aid programs. Each year, we have to fight for the adoption of this amendment which would bolster these international assistance efforts, and yet each year we find ourselves here again debating this same issue. There is no question that U.S. population assistance is of critical importance to our international aid efforts. Population assistance is the primary deliverer of health education, health care, and prenatal care to millions of women in developing countries. But beyond the social and physiological aid that this program brings to these nations, there is a real economic benefit as well. According to USAID, studies in several countries have shown that for every dollar invested in family planning programs, governments save as much as $16 in reduced expenditures in health, education, and social services. This is not only an investment in the health of women, and their children, and their families but for whole nations and their ability to stabilize and grow stronger. There is also no question that U.S. population assistance efforts in developing countries have been successful, as demonstrated by the fact that the average family size in countries that have received U.S. population assistance has decreased from six children to four. AID assistance has increased the use of contraceptives in developing countries from 10 percent of married couples in the 1970s to 50 to 60 percent today. This not only allows for family planning which helps ensure healthier pregnancies, resulting in healthier babies, but is critical to our efforts to fight infectious diseases like AIDS that are plaguing many Third World countries. The discussion of contraceptives leads me to a very critical point . . . the issue before us today is not abortion, because current law already prohibits the use of any U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. This is a crucial fact that needs to be on record. Under the Helms amendment of 1973, U.S. funds cannot be used for abortion- related activities and have not been permitted for that purpose for 30 years. I support that law as an important guarantee that our international family planning programs stay apart from domestic debates on the issue of abortion. At the hear of the issue we are debating today is the so called Mexico City policy because it was at the 1984 U.N. Population Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan administration adopted this policy. Under the Mexico City policy, the Reagan administration witheld international family planning funds from all groups that had the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services even though they were paid for with their own private funds. This was done despite the fact that similar restrictions were not placed on funding programs run by foreign governments that related to legal abortions. Quite appropriately, this policy is also referred to as the international ``gag rule'' because it prevents organizations from even providing abortion counseling or referral services. The need for the passage of this amendment is in part about leadership. The United States has traditionally been the leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the case ever since this issue rose to international prominence with the 1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a great number of the world's developing countries perceived family planning as a Western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World countries. However, in the years since, the need and importance of family planning has been recognized and embraced by most developing nations. If, as a country, we believe in volunteerism in family planning--and we do--then we should maintain our leadership. Because of our leading role in international family planning, we have unrivaled influence in setting standards for family planning programs. A great number of other donors and recipient countries adopt our models in their own efforts. According to the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the Mexico City policy penalizes 56 countries whose nongovernmental organizations--NGOs--receive family planning assistance funds from the United States. NGOs are prohibited not only from providing abortion- related services but also counseling and referrals regarding abortions. That is the policy; let's consider the real effect on people. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, about 4 in every 10 pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, and 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Knowing this, the net effect of the Mexico City policy on these 56 nations is to limit or eliminate critical family planning work that has a very real impact on the quality of life. Moreover, the absence of family planning increases the instance of the one thing that the advocates of the Mexico City policy are most opposed to--abortion. The bottom line is, family planning is about health care. Too often, women in developing nations do not have access to the contraceptive or family planning services they need because contraceptives are expensive, supplies are erratic, services are difficult or impossible to obtain, or the quality of care is poor. In a report by the Population Action Institute it was estimated that about 515,000 women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth, or almost one death every minute, and millions more women become ill or disabled. In addition, an estimated 78,000 women die every year from illegal and unsafe abortion and thousands more are injured. How many women die because the access to these services is limited? Quite simply, the Mexico City policy is bad public policy. That is why year after year we fight for this amendment and some years we win in committee and other years we don't, yet we still fight this important fight. The Mexico City policy not only limits discussion, counseling, and referrals for abortion, but it also limits the ability of organizations, in at least 59 nations, to carry out needed family planning work. We must remember that family planning is about--just that--planning one's family. By spacing births at least 2 years apart, family planning can prevent an average of one in four infant deaths in developing countries. Family planning provides access to needed contraceptives and gives women worldwide the ability to properly space out their pregnancies so that they can have healthier babies, which will lead to healthier children and healthier nations. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment before us and ensure that international organizations are no longer forced to limit or eliminate critical family planning work that has a very real impact on the quality of life of women and families worldwide.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003,'' a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, and its programs for the next three years. While reauthorization legislation is a significant event, this year it is particularly auspicious since we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the agency--a full half century of helping to create, assist, and guide small businesses. As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I began developing this legislation just after assuming the leadership of the Committee in January. The bill I introduce today is the product of considerable effort and vetting, and I am very pleased to be joined by the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Kerry, in this process. Through his contributions and those of other Members of my Committee, this is truly bipartisan bill. Over the past several months, we have held a series of hearings and roundtables to examine virtually every aspect of the SBA and the wide array of programs and services it provides to the country's small enterprises. As we started that process, we looked back on the SBA's history to learn from its past in order to set a path for its future. More than 50 years ago, congressional efforts began to focus on the specific needs of small businesses--to create a ``level playing field''--and to develop Federal small business assistance programs. One of the objectives was to ensure that small businesses could develop management and marketing skills to compete with big business for their share of government contracts. In May of 1953, the Small Business Act was introduced, and it became law on July 30 of that year with President Eisenhower's signature. Since 1953, Congress and the various administrations have responded to the needs of small businesses by creating a fair but competitive environment for those who choose entrepreneurship. The SBA has evolved from a direct lender and provider of management assistance to a nationwide delivery system of resources offering a complete menu of small business tools, professional counseling assistance, business education and training programs, Federal procurement opportunities, and loan guaranty programs. Today, the agency faces enormous challenges. Each year, there are 3 to 4 million new businesses start-ups--one in 25 adult Americans is taking steps to start a business. One quarter of existing small business owners intend to form another business. And, small businesses account for approximately two-thirds of the net new jobs in our country. So while the SBA has had a tremendous impact on the success of small businesses over the past 50 years, it is critical that we ensure the agency is well positioned to produce even better results in the next 50 years. My goal in developing this bill has been to ascertain what works among SBA programs, why it works, and apply that approach to other programs so there is more consistent success within the SBA portfolio of products and services. In the end, I hope this bill will lead to a renewed SBA, rededicated to improving the environment or leveling the playing field for small business ownership in America. While the particulars of this bill are extensive, I want to highlight three of its most critical, key areas-- In terms of financing programs for small businesses, during this reauthorization process, I have focused extensively on improving the credit and venture capital resources that the SBA provides for small enterprises. These programs--including the 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs as well as the SBIC, New Markets Venture Capital, and Surety Bond programs provide vital capital for America's small businesses. In addition, looking just at the lending programs, they alone are responsible for helping small businesses create and retain more than 1.3 million jobs in just the past 3 years! That is why I held two Committee roundtables on these financing programs so I could hear firsthand from small business, lenders, and the SBA about ways these programs can increase access to capital for small businesses. To start, we are proposing to continue the growth of the financing programs through reasonable increases in their authorization levels. The bill also increases the amount that small businesses can borrow subject to the SBA's guarantee, so that the SBA's loan sizes will keep pace with what it actually costs to start and operate a small business in today's economy. And we make improvements to the SBA's loan programs that will benefit fast-growing contributors and vital elements of our economy including women-owned and veteran- owned businesses and small business exporters. Moreover, the bill addresses access to capital by helping SBA's lending partners. A new initiative that holds great promise will allow for the pooling of small business loans not guaranteed by the SBA. This pilot program was recommended by participants at our roundtable on April 30, 2003, and has been under consideration by the SBA. By pooling these non-guaranteed loans together and offering them as securities on the secondary market with a partial SBA guarantee on the pool, banks will be able to free-up capital for additional small business lending. As a result, they will be able to provide even greater resources for small businesses struggling to secure the necessary capital to start up, operate, and grow. Similarly, the new National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will allow qualified SBA lenders to be licensed on a nationwide basis. Currently, Preferred Lenders must qualify in every region where they do business, which is both cumbersome and costly. This initiative will streamline that process for the premier lenders who qualify for a nationwide license and enable them to provide capital more efficiently and effectively to small businesses across the nation. In addition, the bill includes a proposal by Senator Kerry to permit non-profit child-care centers to qualify for 504 loans. I believe the growing need for child care in this country warrants testing this idea as a pilot program, even as I continue to have reservations about this initiative's effect on the availability of loans under the 504 program for other for-profit borrowers and the expansion of this loan program to non-profit entities. Accordingly, we have limited the loan volume under the pilot to 7 percent of the overall 504 loans to ensure that this initiative does not bar qualifying for-profit businesses from obtaining necessary financing. Finally in the area of financing programs, we have also focused on improving the SBA's procedures for overseeing lenders participating in the credit programs. By improving this oversight, we can protect against improper lending practices, produce a more consistent system for lenders, and provide taxpayers with better protection of their tax dollars. In the area of entrepreneurial development, we set out to ensure that the SBA's programs continue to provide the products and services essential to small businesses, which in turn create a return on our investment in these programs through successful business ownership and job creation. Recognizing the tremendous accomplishments by women entrepreneurs, I introduced the Women's Small Business Improvement Act of 2003 (S. 1154) earlier this year to improve the SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership, the Women's Business Centers Program, the National Women's Business Council, and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. I have incorporated those provisions into the bill before us in order to provide a universal approach to all of SBA's sponsored programs and services for women. A cornerstone of this effort involves making the Women's Business Center Program a permanent program that will offer opportunities for new centers and renewal grants for existing centers on a competitive basis. By replacing the pilot Sustainability Program, which expires at the end of the current fiscal year, with a fair and balanced grant program, the bill will correct the funding constraints that have plagued the program in 2003. The bill will also provide for the creation of new centers and the continuation of current operating centers through renewal grants. This structure will reward successful centers with continuation funding and weed out failing centers to make room for new ones with greater potential for serving the needs of women-owned businesses. The National Women's Business Council will also be given greater control of its mission, and I am proposing the full funding of $1 million for each Fiscal Year for this program. The Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise will be reenergized by providing interim leadership and a shared focus with the National Women's Business Council, the Women's Business Centers, and the Office of Women's Business Ownership. These programs hold great potential for women-owned businesses, but they must be coordinated so that their limited resources are dedicated to a focused goal. In addition, the SBA's entrepreneurial development partners--the Small Business Development Centers and the Service Corps of Retired Executives--continue to provide quality training and free counseling through almost 2,000 locations and are limited only by funding and their geographic locations. Therefore, in addition to minor technical changes in these programs, I propose that we increase the authorization level for these programs to support the increased demand for their services. And we have included the Native American Small Business Development Program in the bill. This initiative will provide entrepreneurial assistance to Tribal Governments and Colleges, Small Business Development Centers in Native American communities, and small businesses located on or near Tribal Lands. Complementing the SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, this initiative will strengthen the SBA's efforts to help Native Americans start, operate and grow small businesses. Finally, one of the most serious problems facing small business is their inability to participate fully in Federal contracts, on either a prime or subcontract basis. In the last 10 years, contract bundling has forced more than 50 percent of small businesses out of the Federal marketplace. Steps clearly must be taken to ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to compete for the business of the nation's largest consumer--the Federal government. President Bush recognizes the inequity that contract bundling represents. He also understands the damage it does to both small businesses and the Federal procurement process by denying the government the benefits of more robust competition, small business efficiencies, and small business innovations. He has spoken out against this practice, and I applaud his commitment to addressing this problem. To achieve that objective, the SBA reauthorization bill addresses the practice of Federal contract bundling by limiting its use and giving small businesses access to Federal contracts and a fair opportunity to compete for them. By requiring studies to be done for all consolidations worth more than $5 million for the Department of Defense and $2 million for all other agencies, the bill also holds agencies to a higher level of accountability than exists under current law. Those who support the practice of bundling allege that denying small businesses access to prime contracts can be offset by ensuring that such firms receive more subcontracts from the large firms that are awarded prime contracts. However, small businesses continue to experience difficulties at the subcontract level as well. This bill contains strong language that strengthens oversight and enforcement of small business subcontracting plans to ensure small business subcontractors are not neglected. Furthermore, we have included provisions to encourage contracting opportunities for women-owned businesses--one of the fastest growing segments of the small business sector of our economy. Despite their success, women-owned small businesses have testified before the Small Business Committee about how difficult it is to do business with the Federal Government. Three years ago Congress created a Procurement Program for Women-Owned Small Business Concerns. That legislation required the promulgation of regulations to help implement new small business procurement set-asides for women-owned businesses. The legislation, however, conditioned the regulations by first requiring a study to be conducted to justify the disparate treatment of women in various procurement instances. At the Small Business Committee's roundtable on April 9, 2003, women-owned small businesses expressed their frustration that it has taken so long to conduct the study and implement the program. This bill directs the GAO to complete that study by December 31, 2003 to ensure that the women's procurement program is finally implemented. Finally, the bill contains improvements to the HUBZone program, which are intended, in part, to address the serious consequences that military base closings pose for our local communities. Closing a military base adversely affects the towns and communities surrounding the installation due to loss of tax revenue, defense income, base transition costs and clean-up costs. Successful recovery from a base closing has been tied to public and private reinvestment in these communities. While Congress has taken action in the past to ease the transition for individuals and spur reinvestment, this bill supports faster redevelopment by expanding the HUBZone Program to include communities affected by base closures. It provides an incentive, through Federal government contracts, for small businesses to operate in these communities and to provide employment to these military and civilian personnel. This year's SBA reauthorization bill paves the way to a stronger SBA able to meet the needs and concerns of the country's entrepreneurs. The future of our country is inextricably tied to the future of small business--and by enhancing the conditions that support small business, we will ensure a more prosperous future for all. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation on behalf of the nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003,'' a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, and its programs for the next three years. While reauthorization legislation is a significant event, this year it is particularly auspicious since we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the agency--a full half century of helping to create, assist, and guide small businesses. As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I began developing this legislation just after assuming the leadership of the Committee in January. The bill I introduce today is the product of considerable effort and vetting, and I am very pleased to be joined by the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Kerry, in this process. Through his contributions and those of other Members of my Committee, this is truly bipartisan bill. Over the past several months, we have held a series of hearings and roundtables to examine virtually every aspect of the SBA and the wide array of programs and services it provides to the country's small enterprises. As we started that process, we looked back on the SBA's history to learn from its past in order to set a path for its future. More than 50 years ago, congressional efforts began to focus on the specific needs of small businesses--to create a ``level playing field''--and to develop Federal small business assistance programs. One of the objectives was to ensure that small businesses could develop management and marketing skills to compete with big business for their share of government contracts. In May of 1953, the Small Business Act was introduced, and it became law on July 30 of that year with President Eisenhower's signature. Since 1953, Congress and the various administrations have responded to the needs of small businesses by creating a fair but competitive environment for those who choose entrepreneurship. The SBA has evolved from a direct lender and provider of management assistance to a nationwide delivery system of resources offering a complete menu of small business tools, professional counseling assistance, business education and training programs, Federal procurement opportunities, and loan guaranty programs. Today, the agency faces enormous challenges. Each year, there are 3 to 4 million new businesses start-ups--one in 25 adult Americans is taking steps to start a business. One quarter of existing small business owners intend to form another business. And, small businesses account for approximately two-thirds of the net new jobs in our country. So while the SBA has had a tremendous impact on the success of small businesses over the past 50 years, it is critical that we ensure the agency is well positioned to produce even better results in the next 50 years. My goal in developing this bill has been to ascertain what works among SBA programs, why it works, and apply that approach to other programs so there is more consistent success within the SBA portfolio of products and services. In the end, I hope this bill will lead to a renewed SBA, rededicated to improving the environment or leveling the playing field for small business ownership in America. While the particulars of this bill are extensive, I want to highlight three of its most critical, key areas-- In terms of financing programs for small businesses, during this reauthorization process, I have focused extensively on improving the credit and venture capital resources that the SBA provides for small enterprises. These programs--including the 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs as well as the SBIC, New Markets Venture Capital, and Surety Bond programs provide vital capital for America's small businesses. In addition, looking just at the lending programs, they alone are responsible for helping small businesses create and retain more than 1.3 million jobs in just the past 3 years! That is why I held two Committee roundtables on these financing programs so I could hear firsthand from small business, lenders, and the SBA about ways these programs can increase access to capital for small businesses. To start, we are proposing to continue the growth of the financing programs through reasonable increases in their authorization levels. The bill also increases the amount that small businesses can borrow subject to the SBA's guarantee, so that the SBA's loan sizes will keep pace with what it actually costs to start and operate a small business in today's economy. And we make improvements to the SBA's loan programs that will benefit fast-growing contributors and vital elements of our economy including women-owned and veteran- owned businesses and small business exporters. Moreover, the bill addresses access to capital by helping SBA's lending partners. A new initiative that holds great promise will allow for the pooling of small business loans not guaranteed by the SBA. This pilot program was recommended by participants at our roundtable on April 30, 2003, and has been under consideration by the SBA. By pooling these non-guaranteed loans together and offering them as securities on the secondary market with a partial SBA guarantee on the pool, banks will be able to free-up capital for additional small business lending. As a result, they will be able to provide even greater resources for small businesses struggling to secure the necessary capital to start up, operate, and grow. Similarly, the new National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will allow qualified SBA lenders to be licensed on a nationwide basis. Currently, Preferred Lenders must qualify in every region where they do business, which is both cumbersome and costly. This initiative will streamline that process for the premier lenders who qualify for a nationwide license and enable them to provide capital more efficiently and effectively to small businesses across the nation. In addition, the bill includes a proposal by Senator Kerry to permit non-profit child-care centers to qualify for 504 loans. I believe the growing need for child care in this country warrants testing this idea as a pilot program, even as I continue to have reservations about this initiative's effect on the availability of loans under the 504 program for other for-profit borrowers and the expansion of this loan program to non-profit entities. Accordingly, we have limited the loan volume under the pilot to 7 percent of the overall 504 loans to ensure that this initiative does not bar qualifying for-profit businesses from obtaining necessary financing. Finally in the area of financing programs, we have also focused on improving the SBA's procedures for overseeing lenders participating in the credit programs. By improving this oversight, we can protect against improper lending practices, produce a more consistent system for lenders, and provide taxpayers with better protection of their tax dollars. In the area of entrepreneurial development, we set out to ensure that the SBA's programs continue to provide the products and services essential to small businesses, which in turn create a return on our investment in these programs through successful business ownership and job creation. Recognizing the tremendous accomplishments by women entrepreneurs, I introduced the Women's Small Business Improvement Act of 2003 (S. 1154) earlier this year to improve the SBA's Office of Women's Business Ownership, the Women's Business Centers Program, the National Women's Business Council, and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. I have incorporated those provisions into the bill before us in order to provide a universal approach to all of SBA's sponsored programs and services for women. A cornerstone of this effort involves making the Women's Business Center Program a permanent program that will offer opportunities for new centers and renewal grants for existing centers on a competitive basis. By replacing the pilot Sustainability Program, which expires at the end of the current fiscal year, with a fair and balanced grant program, the bill will correct the funding constraints that have plagued the program in 2003. The bill will also provide for the creation of new centers and the continuation of current operating centers through renewal grants. This structure will reward successful centers with continuation funding and weed out failing centers to make room for new ones with greater potential for serving the needs of women-owned businesses. The National Women's Business Council will also be given greater control of its mission, and I am proposing the full funding of $1 million for each Fiscal Year for this program. The Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise will be reenergized by providing interim leadership and a shared focus with the National Women's Business Council, the Women's Business Centers, and the Office of Women's Business Ownership. These programs hold great potential for women-owned businesses, but they must be coordinated so that their limited resources are dedicated to a focused goal. In addition, the SBA's entrepreneurial development partners--the Small Business Development Centers and the Service Corps of Retired Executives--continue to provide quality training and free counseling through almost 2,000 locations and are limited only by funding and their geographic locations. Therefore, in addition to minor technical changes in these programs, I propose that we increase the authorization level for these programs to support the increased demand for their services. And we have included the Native American Small Business Development Program in the bill. This initiative will provide entrepreneurial assistance to Tribal Governments and Colleges, Small Business Development Centers in Native American communities, and small businesses located on or near Tribal Lands. Complementing the SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, this initiative will strengthen the SBA's efforts to help Native Americans start, operate and grow small businesses. Finally, one of the most serious problems facing small business is their inability to participate fully in Federal contracts, on either a prime or subcontract basis. In the last 10 years, contract bundling has forced more than 50 percent of small businesses out of the Federal marketplace. Steps clearly must be taken to ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to compete for the business of the nation's largest consumer--the Federal government. President Bush recognizes the inequity that contract bundling represents. He also understands the damage it does to both small businesses and the Federal procurement process by denying the government the benefits of more robust competition, small business efficiencies, and small business innovations. He has spoken out against this practice, and I applaud his commitment to addressing this problem. To achieve that objective, the SBA reauthorization bill addresses the practice of Federal contract bundling by limiting its use and giving small businesses access to Federal contracts and a fair opportunity to compete for them. By requiring studies to be done for all consolidations worth more than $5 million for the Department of Defense and $2 million for all other agencies, the bill also holds agencies to a higher level of accountability than exists under current law. Those who support the practice of bundling allege that denying small businesses access to prime contracts can be offset by ensuring that such firms receive more subcontracts from the large firms that are awarded prime contracts. However, small businesses continue to experience difficulties at the subcontract level as well. This bill contains strong language that strengthens oversight and enforcement of small business subcontracting plans to ensure small business subcontractors are not neglected. Furthermore, we have included provisions to encourage contracting opportunities for women-owned businesses--one of the fastest growing segments of the small business sector of our economy. Despite their success, women-owned small businesses have testified before the Small Business Committee about how difficult it is to do business with the Federal Government. Three years ago Congress created a Procurement Program for Women-Owned Small Business Concerns. That legislation required the promulgation of regulations to help implement new small business procurement set-asides for women-owned businesses. The legislation, however, conditioned the regulations by first requiring a study to be conducted to justify the disparate treatment of women in various procurement instances. At the Small Business Committee's roundtable on April 9, 2003, women-owned small businesses expressed their frustration that it has taken so long to conduct the study and implement the program. This bill directs the GAO to complete that study by December 31, 2003 to ensure that the women's procurement program is finally implemented. Finally, the bill contains improvements to the HUBZone program, which are intended, in part, to address the serious consequences that military base closings pose for our local communities. Closing a military base adversely affects the towns and communities surrounding the installation due to loss of tax revenue, defense income, base transition costs and clean-up costs. Successful recovery from a base closing has been tied to public and private reinvestment in these communities. While Congress has taken action in the past to ease the transition for individuals and spur reinvestment, this bill supports faster redevelopment by expanding the HUBZone Program to include communities affected by base closures. It provides an incentive, through Federal government contracts, for small businesses to operate in these communities and to provide employment to these military and civilian personnel. This year's SBA reauthorization bill paves the way to a stronger SBA able to meet the needs and concerns of the country's entrepreneurs. The future of our country is inextricably tied to the future of small business--and by enhancing the conditions that support small business, we will ensure a more prosperous future for all. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation on behalf of the nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by Senator Bingaman. We are not here to alter the guidelines for the Medicaid Program because it certainly would have an impact on the underlying Medicaid Program. Let me be clear. We did not create a new asset test for this benefit. We followed the asset test that exists in current law and that governs existing low-income assistance programs under Medicaid and Medicare. Actually, we learned our lesson from the last debate last fall on the tripartisan bill. We realized in constructing that approach that we excluded 40 percent of low-income Medicare beneficiaries. So this time we built on the existing Medicaid and Medicare Programs. We created a new program for those under 160 percent of the poverty level that has no asset test. By doing so, we capture 8.5 million more Medicare beneficiaries for a total of 17.5 million Medicare beneficiaries or 43 percent of the overall program. We target our assistance, the most assistance to those most in need. So it is important for our colleagues to understand, we are using asset tests that already exist in current law to maximize the most assistance to those most in need of this benefit. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the amendment that I am offering today with Senator Bingaman, a longtime champion of community health centers and the original cosponsor of the legislation that we introduced, S. 654, the Medicare Safety Net Access Act, from which this provision has been taken. I also would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Smith for their help in moving this important policy change forward. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus also should be recognized for their work on behalf of Community Health Centers. Their willingness to work with me has made adoption of this policy possible. This amendment will help ensure that Community Health Centers remain a viable and integral part of the health care delivery system for Medicare beneficiaries and rural communities at large. Community Health Centers, also known as Federally qualified health centers, provide care to millions of medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. In many cases, Community Health Centers are the only source of primary and preventive services to which these beneficiaries have access. This is especially true for people living in America's rural and inner-city medically underserved areas. As many of you know, under the traditional fee-for-service program Community Health Centers currently are reimbursed by Medicare bases on the cost to deliver care. However, because managed care plans, such as those expected to be used under the new MedicareAdvantage program, use capitated rates, which are negotiated rates based on patient volume and often are lower than the fee-for-service cost-reimbursement rate, Community Health Centers would likely experience substantial reductions in payments. If, as CMS predicts, over 40 percent of seniors enter the new MedicareAdvantage program, Community Health Centers would experience a substantial loss of revenue because their payment for almost half of their clients would be based on a capitated rate. If this happens, Community Health Centers would be unable to meet the growing demand of serving the Medicare population. This amendment ensures that doesn't happen. Starting in 2006, if the capitated rate that a Community Health Center receives from a participating MedicareAdvantage plan is less than the fee-for-service cost reimbursement rate, the Medicare program will pay the difference in the amount. This is done presently under the Medicaid program and it should be no different under the Medicare program. Community Health Centers are an invaluable component in the health care delivery system in rural communities and I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted into S. 1.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills for harbors in Maine, two of them that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Projects in Tenants Harbor and Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, and the third will redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union River Federal Navigational Channel in Ellsworth as an anchorage. The bills will help strengthen the economic viability of these three popular Maine harbors. My first bill, S. 1318, pertains to Tenants Harbor, ME. Officials of the Town of Tenants Harbor have requested that the harbor be deauthorized. The original project was authorized in 1919, and was dredged that same year so that steamboats could access the Harbor. The channel has a width of 375 feet and extended out to 1,100 feet from Steamboat Wharf. Times have certainly changed as no steamboat has landed in the Harbor for 75 years. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the Federal navigational channel. Deauthorizing the FNC would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. My second bill S. 1319 concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The Town of Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be withdrawn from the Federal Navigation Project because of changing harbor usage over the last 45 years. This removal will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed- use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be carried out at town expense. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. My third bill, S. 1320, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the city's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, that Congress is currently drafting.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills for harbors in Maine, two of them that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Projects in Tenants Harbor and Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, and the third will redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union River Federal Navigational Channel in Ellsworth as an anchorage. The bills will help strengthen the economic viability of these three popular Maine harbors. My first bill, S. 1318, pertains to Tenants Harbor, ME. Officials of the Town of Tenants Harbor have requested that the harbor be deauthorized. The original project was authorized in 1919, and was dredged that same year so that steamboats could access the Harbor. The channel has a width of 375 feet and extended out to 1,100 feet from Steamboat Wharf. Times have certainly changed as no steamboat has landed in the Harbor for 75 years. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the Federal navigational channel. Deauthorizing the FNC would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. My second bill S. 1319 concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The Town of Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be withdrawn from the Federal Navigation Project because of changing harbor usage over the last 45 years. This removal will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed- use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be carried out at town expense. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. My third bill, S. 1320, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the city's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, that Congress is currently drafting.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' in recognition of the critical need to provide economic development assistance to communities, across this Nation, that have been negatively impacted by trade. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Murkowski in offering this critical legislation. We are faced with a challenge to a U.S. trade program from the international community and with communities that are being left behind in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult decisions to turn these two challenges into opportunities for this Nation. In 1999, I supported the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, authored by Senator DeWine, that used the revenue from countervailing and antidumping tariff duties to provide assistance to the firms that were affected by unfair trade. I supported that bill because it introduced an important policy principle: that the revenue from unfair trade should be used to help those hurt by trade. Unfortunately, that act ran afoul of our international commitments. In January, the World Trade Organization ruled that this program was in violation of our Antidumping Agreement, and the President requested Congress repeal that program in order to bring the United States into compliance. While I cannot support a full repeal of this program, I believe the bill we are introducing today will bring the United States into compliance with our international obligations, while maintaining the principle that this money be used to help those hurt by trade. In fact, the TRADE for America's Communities Act builds upon the strong foundation and principles of Senator DeWine's program and it is my hope that other proponents of the CDSOA will support our efforts to address the needs of these communities. While it is necessary to live up to our international agreements, it is just as imperative that we live up to our responsibilities to the fishing towns, mining towns and mill towns of America where jobs have been lost. With the momentum provided by the passage of Trade Promotion Authority, the President has put forth an agenda on a bilateral, regional and global basis that promotes the liberalization of trade. As the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities for prosperity and growth. At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing inputs, come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in the U.S. economy. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths from trade are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation. However, while technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization is the chosen policy of government. Free trade creates opportunities, but it also creates responsibilities that this government must embrace just as firmly as it embraces free trade. The bill we are introducing today address these issues by giving the Department of Commerce the revenue from these tariffs, which currently goes to corporations, to provide technical assistance to communities that have been negatively impacted by trade, to develop strategic plans that would focus on creating and retaining jobs in a community and promote economic diversification. Once the strategic plans have been approved by the Department of Commerce, grants would be available, based on the needs of the community, to implement economic development projects, improve the local infrastructure, support the establishment of small businesses, and attract new businesses. In small towns, where the livelihood of the local economy depends on one industry, one plant, or one company, that is suffering under trade liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper mill, or textile mill shuts down. In towns like East Millinocket, ME, where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt, or in Waterville, Maine, where Hathaway shut down their plant and moved shirt production overseas, local economies were sent into disarray. That is just part of the reason I was so adamant in my support last year for improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance. Congress did the right thing when we expanded TAA training and benefits in the Trade Act of 2002, but one of the complaints leveled against TAA was the concern over what these workers would be able to do with their new training in small towns that had few jobs to offer. The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' seeks to answer those concerns by ensuring that in towns where there may be few opportunities left, this government takes the first step towards providing hope through economic adjustment assistance. The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' would lay the groundwork for an America where no community is left behind in the march towards a free and open global economy. As the Finance Committee continues its work on trade legislation and the numerous trade agreements being proposed by this Administration, I look forward to the opportunity to address the economic development needs of these communities.