Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, the ranking member, Senator Baucus, raised a number of valid issues as to how we were able to improve upon the lessons we learned last year from our debate on this most important issue regarding asset tests. That was, obviously, one of the areas we had difficulties addressing in a way that would satisfy most of our colleagues in the Senate. This year, having drawn upon those lessons, we did craft a proposal that ultimately maximizes the ability of those low-income individuals of participating in this program in the fairest way possible, and that is not to exclude those who certainly are in need of this type of benefit and certainly are in need of some type of assistance because they do have low incomes. Therefore, I think the asset test is a much more fairer approach, much more equitable, without excluding those who certainly have the need for this type of program. We have come a long way in designing a system that, for the most part, will satisfy those who had concerns with the previous provision in the tripartisan plan. In fact, Families USA supported our legislation with respect to this provision. I quote from it: We congratulate the U.S. Senate for making major improvements in the prescription drug coverage for America's 14 million Medicare beneficiaries below 160 percent of poverty. They felt it was essential to assist the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries, and they, obviously, supported our efforts and thought we should not take any steps to minimize the improvements that have been made in this legislation with respect to the subsidies included in the pending legislation. I raise another issue I was unable to address yesterday, and that is with respect to the Government fallback provision that is included in the pending legislation. I know there was an amendment that was offered by the Senator from Michigan that would provide for a permanent fallback because those who argue we should have a permanent option to Government fallback so seniors can choose under the stand-alone prescription drug benefit say it will offer more stability and more choices to seniors. As we worked last year, again drawing upon the lessons with respect to a Government fallback, we learned two things. Obviously the provision and the way we addressed it in the tripartisan plan was not satisfactory. We did have language that ensured it guaranteed a seamless approach so seniors would not lose their coverage in the event the private delivery mechanism did not work to provide the prescription drug benefit, but that did not satisfy many of the critics with respect to our legislation last fall. On the other hand, we saw how much a Government-run program can cost. CBO estimated a Government-run program could cost at least $600 billion, at least based on the bill that had been introduced in the Senate, and that we debated with several versions, up to a trillion dollars or more. It also sunset in order to mask the true costs because again a Government-run system that has no competition, has no choices, does not do anything to maximize the efficiency or increase the innovative ways in which the private sector could provide those plans. When one is competing against a Government-run program that has no risk, then the cost goes up. That is at least the way the Congressional Budget Office assigned the score to that program. So we had a $600 billion to $1 trillion cost with a Government-run program, because there were no risks involved in that program in implementing that type of an approach. It was all performance based, and so therefore it was going to be much more costly. Then again, it was sunset. After 7 years, the prescription drug benefit under that approach would have been sunsetted. It also statutorily limited the number of drugs a senior could purchase to two in any therapeutic class. So, again, not only did the benefit sunset but it also limited the choices available to seniors with respect to the types of medications that would be covered under that approach because it was too costly, because it was a Government- run program. On the other hand, we understood it was absolutely essential that seniors, regardless of where they lived in America, whether it was in a rural area or in an urban area, should have the ability to have a prescription drug benefit that was of equal value, that was in the bill that became law. So we did include a Government fallback provision. There were those who felt it did not go far enough or was not sufficient to prevent a seamless, uninterrupted approach in terms of coverage. This year, having drawn upon that experience, we designed a different approach, and we included a Government fallback. We think the Government fallback should be the last resort, not the first resort. So, therefore, there have to be two participating in the program with a drug benefit. If that fails, then the Government would step in. If only one plan participated, the Government would step in and provide a fallback. We think this maximizes the approaches in terms of enhancing competition and choices but at the same time ensuring seniors that no matter what happens, if private plans do not participate in some part of the country, they will always have the assurance and the guarantee that they will have access to a prescription drug benefit in the coverage without interruption. So therefore we designed a system that incorporated the risk management so we can encourage competition among the private sector plans. We think that is important. We also help give the Secretary the flexibility to dial down the risk even to nothing in order to encourage private plans to participate. But in the event that does not happen, that we do not get two plans at a minimum participating and providing choices to seniors in any part of the country in any one of the 10 regions, then certainly the Government would step in and provide the fallback plan. Even if there is only one private plan that is available, the Government will step in. Again, to address concerns on this side of the aisle with respect to the fact that we are not doing enough to encourage seniors to go into the private delivery model, we do only allow for a 1-year contract for the Government fallback, again trying to encourage private plans to participate in the process. We obviously think if seniors have private plans participating, they will have competition and choices that will maximize the number of choices for seniors across the board similar to what is available to Members of Congress and to Federal employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. There are a maximum number of choices, an array of plans, different types of approaches tailored to the needs of seniors either in that particular region or in terms of their medical and health care needs. For example, a private plan could design a generic-only plan or it could design a plan that includes the most commonly used drugs for medications. So we have hopes that we not only encourage competition but at the same time provide a fallback for prescription drug benefits. The Secretary has the authority to design that program and negotiate the risks for the plans to make the market as appealing as possible and is required to make choices among a number of plans, at least three plans for each region. However, if at least two plans are not willing to provide services in the region, as I said earlier, the Government fallback will be triggered. Once triggered, the Government will enter into a 1-year contract with a fallback company. Further, that leaves one plan that is willing to participate in a fallback region. The Secretary may allow that plan to provide coverage alongside the Government fallback plan. So we think we have maximized the assurances and the security for seniors that, irrespective of where they live in America, they will have access to a prescription drug benefit. The structure of this provision was vital in securing the type of bipartisan support we received in the Senate Finance Committee, and tripartisan support with the support of Senator Jeffords we were able to achieve in the final analysis. It was a 16-to-5 vote in the Senate Finance Committee because we were able to incorporate the lessons of the past. That is why we designed this type of permanent fallback so that it does not undermine the costs of the programs. It invites competition but it also provides the assurances to seniors that they will have prescription drug benefit regardless of where they live in America, regardless of what happens in the private sector. If the private sector does not play a role, Government most assuredly will. I think we have designed the maximum amount of security and the least amount of risk to seniors in terms of the type of coverage they will receive. I did want to address some of those issues because I do think it is a fundamental component of this legislation before us. There has been a lot of confusion about what this legislation is and is not, and I assure my colleagues that we do have Government protection but at the same time we also do not want to diminish the ability of the private sector to play a competitive role. In the event that does not transpire, then we obviously will have the availability of a fallback provided by Government and the maximum amount of authority vested in the Secretary to design that program so it does not jeopardize seniors' access to coverage at any point, especially those seniors who live in rural areas. I yield the floor.

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.

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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the exceptional commitment of Chairman Grassley as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, ranking member, Senator Baucus, to meld both political and policy differences and produce a bill that can garner support of 16 members of the Finance Committee, 16 Members of the Senate Finance Committee who represented every facet of the political spectrum. That they were able to execute this extraordinary achievement and produce this bill, especially less than a year after the committee process was bypassed altogether, is a testament not only to their skill but also to their passion for this issue. They have built upon the leadership that has been provided by the President, who challenged the Congress to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit, offered principles, and more recently issued the charge to the Congress to have a bill on his desk in July. The Senate majority leader has been steadfast in his commitment not only that a markup should be held in the Finance Committee but also to ensuring we had a timetable to make the process work and to have this legislation on the President's desk in July. Thanks to his determination and also to the determination, commitment, and longstanding contributions made by my colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Breaux, and Senator Jeffords, along with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, with whom I have worked over the past few years, seniors will be able to celebrate a second independence day this summer: Independence from the crushing cost of prescription drugs. As one who teamed with Senator Wyden almost 6 years ago to forge this first bipartisan prescription drug coverage bill in the Senate, I know it has been a rather lengthy road that has led to this day, but it has been a much longer and more arduous journey for America's seniors who cannot afford to wait any longer for Washington to act. So I am pleased we now stand on the brink of passing legislation that will provide every senior with the security of a comprehensive prescription drug benefit under the Medicare Program. That means we have the opportunity to pass this benefit this month and to have it on the President's desk in July. We have certainly come a long way since I started in this process with my colleague, Senator Wyden, almost 6 years ago, when we fired some of the opening shots in this legislative battle. We progressed from the $28 billion former President Clinton proposed for a prescription drug proposal to the $40 billion program that we established--Senator Wyden and I, in the Budget Committee as members of that committee, for a $40 billion reserve fund over 5 years--to finally enacting a reserve fund several years later, again, a reserve fund for more than $300 billion. Ultimately, we had the proposal last fall for $370 billion, and then the bipartisan bill that included that amount of money, and then, of course, the $400 billion that was proposed by the President this year. I remind my colleagues that is almost $200 billion more than the President originally initiated for a proposal just last year. So we have come a long way in this process over a 6-year period, from $28 billion to $40 billion to $300 billion to $370 billion to $400 billion right now. There are those who argue they have not been included in the process that has brought us to the floor of the Senate this week, but I can say we have had extensive hearings in the Senate Finance Committee. I remind my colleagues, since 1999 the Finance Committee has held 30 Medicare hearings with 8 focused specifically on the creation of a prescription drug benefit. Last year, we spent 2 weeks on the Senate floor considering 5 different initiatives. During the Finance Committee's consideration of this bill last week, the chairman allowed an extensive discussion of the issues and more than 136 amendments were filed. The bottom line is the policies in this consensus bill certainly were not achieved in a vacuum. They are the combination of 5 years of vetting and bipartisan bridge building. They are the direct descendants of last year's tripartisan bill that we spent 2 years developing, meeting every week. That was, again, Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Breaux, Senator Hatch, Senator Jeffords, and myself, and this ultimately resulted in an evolutionary process of numerous iterations of various legislative initiatives and provisions. It has been a healthy competition of ideas that has been forged into this piece of legislation today, recognizing it is virtually impossible in a 51-49 Senate to design the largest domestic program, in nominal terms, ever created and to pass the most significant enhancement of the Medicare Program in its 38-year history with a ``my way or the highway'' approach. Concessions must be made. Thankfully, they have been made in arriving at this policy equilibrium that acknowledges, not only what is politically possible but, most critically, what is workable and meaningful and effective for America's seniors. The President made concessions, Republicans made concessions, Democrats made concessions, and then there were concessions made across the ideological spectrum in each of our respective parties. But, in the final analysis we also have acknowledged that if we want to pass a prescription drug benefit, then we have to achieve a consensus to ensure that seniors get this benefit this year and now. As a result, we maintained that there were certain principles that had to be adhered to in the development of this legislation. Certainly it maintained the four principles we established when we designed the original tripartisan plan. First of all, the benefit must be universal--that is the No. 1 priority for seniors, ensuring that any new benefit is available in every region of the country regardless of whether you live in an urban area or a rural area--and that you could receive this benefit at the lowest monthly cost possible; that the benefit be targeted, with lower income seniors receiving the most assistance, with limited cost sharing and reduced or eliminated premiums; that the benefit be comprehensive, providing coverage for every therapeutic drug class and category from the generics to the most advanced innovative therapies, while at the same time providing seniors with a choice in plans; and that the benefit produce real savings. In this bill, an individual with an annual income of $15,000 per year, and drug expenditures of $7,000 per year, would save $6,000, an 80-percent savings. A couple with an annual combined income of $30,000 and combined drug expenses of $5,000 would save $1,385, a 28-percent saving. All of these principles are essentially the ones that we developed in the tripartisan plan and even before that, when, with my colleague Senator Wyden, in the legislation we introduced back in 1998, after months of intensive research and outreach and negotiations, we became more convinced than ever, working across the political aisle and also understanding the policy dynamics and what undergirds the Medicare Program, we had to create a universal benefit under the Medicare Program with a subsidy to help lower income families pay for those premiums. Moreover, because we believe individuals should have the same ability Members of Congress and Federal employees enjoy to choose the coverage that best suits their needs, seniors would be able to select their coverage from a variety of offerings by private insurers. Then, as today, there are those who felt that any meaningful, reliable benefit should be a Government-run program. But we also learned from the debate last fall, when we considered various proposals across the political spectrum. We considered a Government-run prescription drug benefit program and we got various estimates from CBO that at the minimum it would cost from $600 billion to more than $1 trillion by certain estimates. That is a problem because, when we have a performance-based program that doesn't have any risk involved in delivering that program, the costs go up. We also saw with that approach that the program would be sunsetted after 7 years, to mask the true costs, so that seniors wouldn't have the true benefit of that program after 7 years because we could not contain the costs with a Government-run program. Obviously, it would affect the future liabilities and the solvency of the Medicare Program, which we know is going to be a serious problem down the road when we have more seniors retire. So, finally, we decided that an approach of that kind ultimately would have significant restrictions. Last year's bill, when it embraced a Government-run program, not only did it sunset, but it also statutorily limited the number of drugs a senior could purchase within a therapeutic class to just two. So that is why we diverged from that road of going down the path of a Government-run program, so they can make sure seniors have options, and also so they can have the availability regardless of where they live in America. Our bill today puts no limit on drug coverage because seniors shouldn't be limited in their options for treatment, just as they also shouldn't be limited in their options for coverage. The fact is, the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when it comes to writing prescriptions. And it certainly won't work when it comes to prescription drug coverage either. The question is how to provide seniors with choice without undermining the integrity of the basic tenets of the Medicare Program. That was the major issue that confronted us in developing the tripartisan plan and certainly the proposal that is before us today. I believe the answer is to allow seniors to utilize the traditional and the familiar fee-for-service delivery method. Over the years, people have come to feel comfortable with this approach and with this model. There are those who have already been a part of this program, and those who will be retiring and may want to join a fee-for-service but at the same time be allowed access to other plans that are developed by private insurers which may be better able to tailor the differences to suit the varied needs of seniors today. This necessitated a give-and-take in this legislation. Specifically, some have criticized this plan for not having a defined benefit. But a defined benefit means all benefits will look alike, which brings us back to the one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, under this legislation, plans have the flexibility to offer the standard benefit as prescribed in the statute or to offer a benefit that is actuarially equivalent to the standard option. The guideline insures that all plans will have the same $275 deductible, $3,700 in true out-of-pocket costs for stop-loss coverage, and the total value. But it allows plans to vary cost sharing requirements between the deductible and stop-loss to create options that are the most appealing to the beneficiaries in that particular region. In other words, with this legislation, the value of the benefits must be the same--not necessarily the benefits themselves. Again, it comes back to choice. Seniors will be able to choose. They can do so secure in the knowledge that those plans offered by private insurers include benchmark standards. This bill's requirements ensure that the overall quality of those standards is protected and preserved in the kind of coverage that will be delivered under this proposal. In order to satisfy the concerns of those who say that offering numerous private plans may be disrupting or confusing to seniors, the bill instructs the administrator for the Center for Medicare Choice to enter into 2-year contracts so seniors will not have to change plans every year if they are happy and content with the services they are receiving. This also should act as an enticement or inducement to private plans to participate because it provides them with the stability as well. Moreover, the new program builds off of strict consumer protection from current law under the Medicare+Choice Program that requires the administrator to approve marketing material and provide educational materials to help beneficiaries compare and contrast benefit options. Remember, the model we are using is the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that serves Members of Congress as well as Federal employees. In fact, the average age of a Federal employee enrollee is 61. Choice works for them. Yet we cannot lose sight of the fact that over 80 percent of current fees voice strong support for the program and may not want to change. They may not want to test the unproven. That is why we believed it was critical that this bill provide an equal drug benefit no matter which option a senior may select because more than 80 percent of seniors are now with the current Medicare fee- for-service program. Because those new retirees in this next decade may be more accustomed to what would be delivered under a preferred provider network, we wanted to offer options and choices among the plans that seniors could select without undermining the integrity of the existing Medicare Program. I know some of my colleagues would have preferred to offer a differential benefit when it came to the prescription drug coverage. Depending on which program you enrolled in, they wanted a better benefit under the private plan as an incentive to participating in the privately created model, known as PPO. Again, we have no certainty as to how these plans will work. We obviously have a track record for the traditional fee-for-service program. We know how that program works. But we don't know how the privately delivered program will work in the final analysis. That is something we will learn about as time proceeds. CMS predicted, for example, that 43 percent of seniors would participate in private plans. But the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 2 percent would participate in the private programs. What happens in the event private prescription drug benefit delivery plans don't flourish in a particular region as projected? We don't have the traditional fee-for-service program to fall back on. What then happens? We can't afford to go back to the days before the Medicare Program was created and instituted in 1965 because those were the days of patchwork coverage that varied widely, if it existed at all for seniors. Again, it depended on where you lived or if you had any kind of medical access or if you had health insurance, which in many cases seniors didn't. That is why we established the Medicare Program back in 1965--so that we created evenness, fairness, and accessibility for all seniors--a platform of a level of care for seniors in this country regardless of where you lived in America, regardless of your income. That is why we felt and strongly believed that we needed to extend fairness to everyone. That was the spirit of the Medicare Program in the first place. Providing a differential or an equal prescription drug benefit is just one of the many sound compromises in this legislation, but at the same time it is consistent with embracing the universal principles of the Medicare Program. I know some have said we have already created a private delivery health option that is doomed to fail; and, that it would hinder the private market so that plans will never possibly participate in this program. In fact, we have worked very closely with insurance actuaries and firms that we hope to attract so that we understand how they make business decisions as well as how they deliver care under those plans and with whom they negotiated to develop those networks and those plans. With that knowledge, we have incorporated a number of mechanisms in this legislation before us today. Those mechanisms include risk corridors, reinsurance and premium stabilization accounts which are intended to build a stable, productive model that we believe will attract and keep companies in the programs. That is very important. We think these are the types of approaches and methodologies and procedures that will attract private insurers to participate in the programs on a regional basis. Furthermore, we are instituting new cost-sharing options such as combining the deductibles for Part A and Part B services--a copayment system that better resembles the private sector today. For example, under the Medicare Program, there are many copayments for preventive health care services. We happen to think that is in the wrong direction, that is the wrong emphasis. There are no copayments under this model for preventive screening. That is very critical. It is important to allow seniors to have access to those types of protective mechanisms that helps prevent more serious illnesses down the road. It also provides a catastrophic cap for medical services which currently is not included in the Medicare Program. Again, there are many upgrades and updated approaches to the private delivery model that do not exist in the traditional fee-for-service program. Again, people will have choices in making decisions as to whether this better works for them or whether they prefer the kinds of support and insurance included in the Medicare Program under the fee-for- service as we know it today. Again, we are establishing a structure that better resembles options delivered in the private market in this newly created private plan to offer more choices to seniors and to determine which structure is more attractive for their needs. Again, in offering this option, I believe--and many of us believe-- that it was also important not to undermine the fee-for-service programs by instituting unproven choices. We do not know whether these privately created systems will work in every part of the country. We do not know who they will negotiate with in that region for providers so that seniors have access to a range of providers and specialists across the board which, obviously, is what the traditional fee-for-service program provides. So there is no way to guarantee that private companies will deliver services in all parts of the country. This concern is especially acute for those of us who represent rural States such as Maine, where no Medicare+Choice programs operate. We understand there have been many problems for many reasons as to why the Medicare+Choice Program does not work very well in many regions of the country. It works well in some but not in many parts of the country. So we learned from those lessons, and we developed a fallback proposal in this initiative that provides security to current Medicare beneficiaries or future beneficiaries that no matter where they live, we ensure that in regions where private plans choose not to participate the Government will contract with companies, like pharmacy benefit managers, to deliver the benefit. Some have criticized this option, saying it will remove incentives for plans to participate in risk-bearing models. This bridge is necessary to address Members' and beneficiaries' legitimate fears that they could be left out of the coverage. That is important because I think it is essential we have a guaranteed, seamless Government fallback. But the fallback we have designed in this legislation is one of last resort; it is not the one of first resort. It will not be triggered unless two private plans will not enter the market, and we limit the contract to 1 year because we must first do everything we can to see that private delivery systems have a chance to flourish in this program. To further entice private plans to enter the market, the administrator is allowed to reduce the risk that a plan bears to almost nothing. Again, the goal is to attract private plans into the market, to work with them to manage their risk, and to make it an attractive market to serve while, at the same time, offering seniors everywhere a guaranteed access to care that will exist under a private delivery system because access to care should not be segmented or guaranteed based on ZIP Code. In that light, another concern the committee took action to correct last week was the threat of large variations in the premium across regions. One of the basic tenets of the Medicare Program, undeniably, is to provide health care benefits to seniors and to persons with disabilities for the same price. Whether you are a senior living in Arizona or Portland, ME, you will pay for the same part B premium. We need to recognize how disparities in prescription drug benefits could lead to variations and instability for seniors enrolled in the private plans. Just consider the case of Medicare+Choice. This was an issue that was raised last week during the course of the debate on the markup in the Senate Finance Committee. The premiums in some regions of Florida, for example, in Medicare+Choice, are $16 a month while in Connecticut they may pay $99 a month. Just from a basic standpoint of fairness, do we really want to create such a system for seniors with their drug coverage? So we need to level the playing field. Obviously, I don't want seniors in Maine to wonder why they are paying a different price for their premium than their neighbors across the border in New Hampshire. How can we find out if private plans are superior to fee-for-service if there are wild fluctuations and disparities between plans and the traditional benefits? So that is why we have to determine, as we proceed with this program, how best to address that issue. Some have said we should stipulate the premium in this legislation in the statute and limit the level of variation. But according to CBO, that would result in higher costs and less efficiently run programs because plans would no longer have the incentive and the flexibility to craft benefit options that are the most appealing to seniors. As we have seen with other Government programs--whether it is job training and placement services--when Congress spells out the requirements, plans typically provide the minimum necessary and never aspire to a higher goal. The committee unanimously adopted an amendment Senator Lincoln and I offered that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to adjust governmental payments to minimize any variation that may result in premiums across the regions due to variations for the standard coverage option under the new Medicare stand-alone prescription drug benefit. We also direct the General Accounting Office to study this issue once the program is operational to determine if wide variations actually materialize. I am confident these two actions will provide Congress with the information necessary to make informed decisions and will allow the Secretary to take corrective actions when necessary. I think this is an important issue. Obviously, this is a very new program. We are testing new theories, new operations that basically reflect the state of health care today with the technologies, with the methods, with the providers, with the type of specialties that exist because we want to be able to give seniors access to a variety of choices across the spectrum, including their access to prescription drug coverage and how it can best be delivered to seniors. So we want to test the innovation, the creativity, and the marketplace as well. That is why it is so important to allow the flexibility to be incorporated in this legislation, but, at the same time, if it does not work in the way we hope or intend, we have given the Secretary the ability to make adjustments on those premiums because it is absolutely important that he has the authority to do so. That is why we included this in the legislation. We will also study the issue to determine what other actions in the future must be taken to ensure those kinds of wide variations and fluctuations do not occur. Finally, I want to turn to the last part of my discussion, which is the issue of the low-income subsidies, which I think is a remarkable aspect of this legislation. We have improved on the tripartisan plan. We learned a lot in our efforts, in our initiatives, over the last 2 years in terms of what is essential to establish a strong, low-income subsidy for our seniors under the Medicare program. First of all, we raised the eligibility criteria to 160 percent of poverty--which is $14,368 for an individual and $19,360 for a couple-- from 150 percent of poverty which we included in the tripartisan bill last year, and we used the eligibility criteria under the existing Medicare low-income assistance programs to create a seamless and simple process to target the most help with premiums, deductibles, and copayments to those nearly 9 million seniors with incomes below $12,123. The nearly 6 million seniors who receive health care coverage from both the Medicare and the Medicaid program--those known as dual eligibles--will continue to receive their drug coverage from the Medicare program. The States will receive additional assistance but this is intended to allow continuity of care and reduce confusion among the poorest and the most vulnerable. My home State of Maine stands as an example of the impact this bill will have on the 40 million individual Medicare beneficiaries. For example, in 2003, there are 19,000 seniors and disabled individuals in Maine who receive health care benefits from both the Medicare and the Medicaid programs, the so-called dual eligibles. An additional 17,700 seniors qualify for the Qualified Medicare Benefit Program which serves people with incomes below 100 percent of poverty, and they will receive the greatest level of subsidy under the new Medicare prescription drug program. And 6,100 seniors are eligible for another program that serves people with incomes below 135 percent of the poverty level. In total, over 90,000 of the estimated 215,000 Medicare beneficiaries living in Maine will qualify for one of the low-income subsidy programs. That is almost half of Maine's senior and disabled population. Each will receive substantial assistance each year. Moreover, unlike the tripartisan legislation, this bill will provide assistance without an asset test to the remaining 8.5 million seniors with incomes under 160 percent of poverty regardless of their level of assets. Taken together, that is nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries or 43 percent of the population. That is an important issue. That is a departure from the tripartisan plan last year because we did have another type of asset test that prevented 40 percent of low-income seniors from receiving coverage. It was a concern to all of us including that asset test, but we were trying to include a program under the $370 billion window that we had for financing this program. This year we used a more consistent methodology and programs that are already familiar to seniors across the country. It is fairer. We have basically eliminated the asset test for those individuals and couples under 160 percent of poverty level. We learned from discussions over the last 2 years that a great deal of concern existed that we were excluding a large number of people with very low income who, because of their assets totaling more than $4,000 for an individual or $6,000 for a couple, would not be eligible for the subsidy. We removed that asset test and, therefore, now we have 17.5 million seniors who will be eligible for low-income assistance. At the same time we ensure those under 160 percent of poverty will never be subject to a gap in coverage where they would be responsible for 100 percent of the cost. All of us would have preferred to eliminate that gap in coverage. But CBO again stated it would cost, by their estimates, somewhere in the area of $200 billion in order to accomplish that goal. So we have to look at what is before us as a starting point, a very strong starting point. We have to consider that nearly 88 percent of all seniors, 35 million people of the Medicare beneficiaries, that is 35 million of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries, will spend under the $4,500 threshold of this so-called gap in coverage. That is before counting the supplemental coverage many have that may well keep even more seniors below that gap in coverage. Moreover, it may also be likely, as with the Federal Employees Benefit Program, that this bill will tailor the benefits and offer options that don't include a gap. We are not preventing private insurers or plans from including that gap. We provide them with an actuarial equivalent benefit, the same value for everyone. They could come up with a variety of plans, including eliminating that gap in coverage. But for the 12 percent of beneficiaries who have drug costs in excess of $4,500, and more specifically the 7 percent that spend more than $3,700 per year in out- of-pocket costs, they will qualify for the program's catastrophic coverage where the Government pays 90 percent of the cost. This proposal counts toward the stop-loss coverage contributions made by the individual, a family member, Medicaid program, or the State pharmacy assistance programs which will further direct help to the lowest income seniors, those under 135 percent of poverty and those who have minimal assets. Finally, I know many across the political aisle are concerned about including employer contributions toward the computation of the $4,500 cap. They point to the concern that some seniors will lose their employer health care coverage because this bill doesn't count employer contributions toward that catastrophic cap and that according to the Congressional Budget Office--again we had to use those determinations in order to design the type of program we could include in this legislation within the $400 billion--33 percent of seniors had employer-sponsored coverage in 2002. They estimate that approximately 37 percent of this 33 percent population will lose their coverage by 2013. That is approximately 4 million Medicare beneficiaries. Obviously, this is troubling. But it is important to note that the Congressional Budget Office could not really estimate how much of this loss would be attributable to passage of this legislation. That is because employers are already dropping health care coverage for their former employees at an alarming rate. As we have seen from so many of the estimates that have been submitted to the committee, from 1999 to 2001, 7 percent of employers dropped retiree coverage. And from what we can determine, that trend is worsening, not improving. Given the limited amount of money available, I believe the most prudent path may be to make adjustments to encourage companies not to drop their coverage but not at the expense of seniors. Obviously the priority is to make sure we get the very best benefit possible for everyone in the Medicare program and to do it, to the extent that we can, within the $400 billion program. I must tell you as it stands, this legislation does include a number of provisions that are intended to help employers and encourage them to maintain retiree health care coverage. Employers can participate in this program in a number of cost- effective ways. An employer can wrap their benefit package around the Medicare benefit which means that Medicare pays first, leaving the employer responsible only for the remaining cost. An employer can also directly pay their retiree's premium under traditional Medicare instead of offering a separate plan. And finally, under the new Medicare advantage option, they can bid to be their own plan and deliver the services to their retirees, which allows them to share the costs of the care with the Government. Finally, the Medicare Advantage Program provides the flexibility to allow employers to pay for enhancements added to the Medicare standard benefit. I supported these provisions because I believe they are fair and appropriate. But this issue remains a vexing challenge. What is the correct balance where we are not discouraging employers from offering coverage for their retirees yet not penalizing seniors who don't have the benefit of employer-sponsored coverage? That really is the problem. Any changes we make to offer incentives and encourage companies to continue their retiree coverage places seniors who don't have this type of coverage at a financial disadvantage. Obviously, that is not consistent with the tenets of the Medicare Program. I want to continue to work with the chairman, who has indicated his interest, to explore various ways to address the issue, along with Senator Baucus, because it is an issue we want to explore further so that we do not add to the costs of the program because employers dropped retiree coverage. In the final analysis, there will always be those who will question if this is the best policy. Others will be concerned about the prudence of committing the Government to such large future expenditures. I, for one, am confident we have struck the correct balance. The average senior will realize $1,200 in annual savings, and the lowest income will see even more assistance. I realize this proposal will not help every senior in the same manner. But that is also because seniors have wide variations in drug costs. What I do know is that the lowest incomes and those with the highest drug costs will realize substantial savings. During a time of growing deficits, this proposal is the best policy to meet the needs of this population as represented by the Congressional Budget Office estimates. This is an important issue because, again, it is getting back to the fairness and balance in the legislation and who will participate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over three-fourths of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries will enroll. That is an important projection for the future well-being of the Medicare Program because you are going to have a blend in the participation that can also provide the very best benefit to those who want to enroll in the program. But you can have a blend in the regions that are developed under the new Medicare Advantage option between urban and rural of those who are healthy and those who are sicker. I think those types of blends will be a marked departure from the Medicare+Choice program. We create much larger regions. There will be approximately 10 regions in the country. It is estimated by the director of the CMS that we could possibly have from six to eight plans participating in each region in the country, giving a breadth of choices to those who participate in the program. Overall, we should have high participation in the drug benefit program. So this bill undoubtedly will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we can pass this decade, and beyond. We can make history today if we set aside our partisan differences. The time is right, the policies are right, and a prescription drug benefit is certainly the right thing to do for America's seniors. Passing this legislation will be a tangible verification of society's commitment to providing for those who have walked the path before us. We can win this, Mr. President. We have tried before and failed. But I think the time has come for us to do what is right for America's seniors. Let us help them, help the Medicare Program to travel this last mile, and bring the Medicare Program into the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Women's Business Centers Preservation Act of 2003'' in recognition of the critical need to preserve the operations of existing Women's Business Centers currently serving women entrepreneurs in almost every state and territory. I am pleased to be joined in offering this bill by Senator Kerry, Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Senators Bond, Cantwell, Burns, Levin, Enzi, Grassley, Baucus, Domenici, and Bingaman. While I am totally supportive of the Administration's efforts to add new centers to serve a broader constituency, I am very concerned that we may lose valuable resources established in rural and urban areas. The value of the Women's Business Center Program is stated best by the text taken from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) promotional materials on the Women's Business Center Program: Each women's business center is uniquely designed to serve the needs of its individual community and to place special emphasis on helping those who are economically disadvantaged. The Women's Business Center Program has become a strong and effective part of the SBA's entrepreneurial-development efforts. And-- In tough economic times, when both employment and funding resources are harder to come by, support for the WBC Program is more important than ever. As Chair of the Small Business Committee, I totally agree with the SBA's assessment. In fact, Congress has agreed six times since the program was introduced through the Small Business Ownership Act of 1988, and made permanent in 1997, that this program is critical for women-business owners. The program's appropriations has grown from $2 million in 1989 to $12 million in 2003, and the results have been impressive. In Fiscal Year 2002, for every dollar invested in the program, centers reported a return of $161 in gross receipts of clients. Even more remarkable is the fact that since 1997, the Women's Business Centers have served more than 240,000 women entrepreneurs. In Fiscal Year 2002, almost 86,000 customers were served through the centers. As reported in the SBA Performance and Accountability Report of 2002, ``the WBC Program has more than doubled its goal of a 3 percent annual increase in the number of clients served in the past two years. This is due in large part to the success of the sustainability grants, which enable established centers to continue SBA funding. SBA expects this trend to continue as more centers become firmly established and as their reputations for excellence spread.'' If we look at the centers that are achieving the greatest impact, it is the established centers. The results of their outreach and one-on- one assistance has made it possible for the Small Business Administration to achieve its goals as it measures the success of the products and programs offered by these centers. It is true that this month only five Women's Business Centers face the possibility of closing their doors without the dollar-to-dollar matching funds that are provided through sustainability funding. The sustainability grant provisions reserve 30.2 percent of the $12 million program funding for sustainability grants for existing centers with the balance of available funds designated for the creation and operation of new centers. Based on information provided by the SBA, there are not sufficient sustainability reserve funds to offer continuation contracts to five centers in Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Washington. Therefore, SBA has proposed a reduction in grants for all centers currently funded by sustainability grants. By increasing the reserve amount to 36 percent, only during Fiscal Year 2003, adequate funds will be available for eligible existing centers operating with sustainability grants. Next year, there will be more than 20 States and the U.S. Virgin Islands affected by the lack of funding to continue operations. Last month, I introduced the ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'', S. 1154, to correct deficiencies in the program and provide a fair, competitive process to operate and grow the Women's Business Center Program. I expect that bill will be taken up as part of the SBA reauthorization legislation my Committee will consider in July. While we can fix the funding problem in the long-run, we still face a crisis today. That is the reason for the bill I am introducing. By increasing the formula for sustainability grants from 30.2 percent to 36 percent, existing centers would be able to operate without disruption in funding and the programs and services currently offered in our communities. This provision will not require an additional appropriation, just a reallocation of current funds. I believe this approach offers the best path available to sustain the centers approaching the end of their grant cycles without creating undue hardship for all existing centers. At the same time, it should not hinder the Administration's efforts to create new centers. These centers have been extraordinarily successful in providing assistance to women in all walks of life--from those who once received public assistance but now operate businesses and create jobs, to women transitioning from employee to small business employer, to established women-business owners who create and manufacture products for sale at home and abroad. The Centers nurture women entrepreneurs through business and financial planning and help with critical issues like securing funding for startup and expansion. Yet--despite these successes--funding questions have long plagued the program. I am committed to resolving the temporary funding crisis through the bill I introduce today and will work with my colleagues to ensure the long-term viability of the Women's Business Center program for today's women entrepreneurs and those of tomorrow.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Senate's Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, reauthorization bill, S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act. Further, I share Senate Commerce Committee Chairman McCain's and Ranking Member Hollings' goal of enacting this legislation before the end of this fiscal year. If airports are going to plan for the future, Congress must avoid being forced into passing a series of stopgap measures that make such planning difficult. This legislation addresses the most critical component of FAA reauthorization--how to finance the operation and development of the nearly 3,500 airports eligible for Federal assistance. S. 824 authorizes a total of $10.5 billion over 3 years for the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, a critical program that funds airport safety and capacity projects, among other programs. Additionally, this bill authorizes $23.2 billion for FAA operations through fiscal year 2006. At the same time we address the overall aviation funding challenges, I am pleased that this bill takes on the individual issues that go to the heart of securing commercial aviation against another terrorist attack. Installing Explosives Detection System, EDS, machines into airports is a necessity that we must grapple with and is part of a broader debate on the appropriate level of AIP funding that should go towards security-related projects. During fiscal year 2002, airports used over $561 million, or 17 percent of all of AIP funds, for security projects--this compared with an annual average of less than 2 percent through fiscal year 2001. As such, it is encouraging that S. 824 creates an annual $500 million Aviation Security Capital Fund to help airports cope with post-9/11 security requirements like EDS installation. Funding for this capital fund would come out of the security fees currently levied by the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and not AIP grant funding. S. 824 would also extend the Government's authority to issue war-risk insurance through fiscal year 2006, which would save the airlines more than $800 million annually. The recently enacted fiscal year 2003 Iraq supplemental bill authorized a 1-year extension of the program--through the end of fiscal year 2004--but by extending it through 2006, we can provide a small measure of financial stability to the airlines and not have to keep coming back every 6 months to revisit the issue. To try to improve FAA management, S. 824 establishes a committee of outside experts to oversee the operation and modernization of the air traffic control system--which has tripled in cost to an estimated $7.6 billion since 1996. This bill also contains provisions designed to expedite the process for construction of airport capacity and safety projects, by allowing DOT to designate certain airport expansion proposals as National Capacity Projects, which would receive dedicated resources and expedited procedures for environmental reviews. This provision is intended to address the fact that, as the General Accounting Office, GAO, has reported, it takes anywhere between 10 and 14 years for new runways to be built--and this has an adverse effect on efforts to increase the aviation system's capacity. As we consider this bill, I want to turn to the issue of small community air service. As we work to address the larger aviation issues, we cannot forget the challenges that small communities in Maine, and throughout the Nation, face in attracting and retaining air service. I have always believed that adequate, reliable air service in our Nation's rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an imperative. And quite frankly, I have serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline industry has had on small- and medium-sized cities in rural areas, like Maine. The fact is, since deregulation, many of these communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More than 300 have lost air service altogether. Many air carriers are experiencing an unprecedented financial crisis, and the first routes on the chopping block will be those to small- and medium-sized communities. This will only increase demand for the two existing Federal forms of assistance, Essential Air Service and the Small Community Air Service Grant Program. Given the challenge faced by small communities in retaining their existing air service, I was pleased that, during our May 1 markup, the Commerce Committee unanimously accepted two amendments I authored to address this issue. The first amendment would create a new Small Community Air Service Ombudsman within DOT. The ombudsman's mission would be to work with carriers and communities to develop air service. This provision is intended to give small communities a seat at the table as DOT crafts national air transportation policy. The second amendment approved by the committee creates a National Commission on Small Community Air Service. The 9-member commission would report back to Congress after 2 years to describe the problems faced by small communities with regard to access to commercial air service and suggest legislative solutions. I believe that, given the complexity of the issue, having all of the stakeholders sit down and consider what can and can't be done will be extremely helpful as Congress exercises its aviation oversight authority. I also wanted to address the Essential Air Service, EAS, provisions in the bill. EAS provides subsidized air service to 125 small communities in the country--including 4 in Maine--that would otherwise be cut off from the Nation's air transportation network. As approved by the committee, S. 824 reauthorized and flat-funds the program for 3 years, and includes certain changes to the program, which are drastically scaled back from what the administration proposed earlier this year for EAS ``reform.'' The administration had called for EAS towns to provide up to 25 percent matching contributions to keep their air service. The committee bill creates a number of new programs to help EAS communities grow their ridership, including a marketing incentive program that would financially reward EAS towns for achieving ridership goals. With regard to local cost-sharing--the centerpiece of the administration's EAS proposal--the Commerce bill would create a pilot program to allow for a 10 percent annual community match at no more than 10 airports within 100 miles of a large airport. While the cost-sharing provisions in the committee bill are much less strict than the administration proposal, and could only be applied to an EAS community under certain specific conditions, I remain concerned about the concept of requiring EAS towns--some of which are cash strapped and economically depressed--from kicking in hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to keep their air service. For example, if Augusta or Rockland, ME, were to be chosen for the cost-sharing pilot program, they would have to come up with over $120,000 annually to retain their air service. As such, I strongly supported Senator Bingaman's amendments to strike the cost-sharing section from the bill and am pleased that it has been approved. The EAS program is not perfect, and Congress certainly need to do all we can to keep subsidy levels as low as possible. I look forward to working with members of the Commerce Committee and the Senate on the issue, but I believe that requiring cost sharing in today's aviation environment is clearly a wrong headed approach. In short, when considering this legislation, I believe that we need do all we can to help small communities maintain their access to the national transportation system during these difficult times. Mr. President, in conclusion, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in taking this step toward strengthening and improving Federal aviation policy today. S. 824 enhances the Federal investment in our Nation's aviation system, and the funding in the bill is critical to the development of America's airports, big and small. Furthermore, quick passage of this 3-year legislation is key to allow airports to plan for the future. As such, I am pleased to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senate confirmation of Mr. John A. Woodcock, Jr. of Hamden, ME, as Federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Maine in Bangor. John's roots run deep in the Bangor community. His family has been there for generations, and John attended John Bapst High School in the heart of downtown. He began his law career in Bangor 26 years ago, and today he is with the Bangor law firm of Woodcock, Weatherbee, Burlock, and Woodcock, having argued 46 cases before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He has served on the Maine Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Responsibility, while also giving of himself personally to the community. Indeed, for about 25 years he has served on the board of Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems and is now president of Eastern Maine Medical Center's Board of Directors. Among other involvements, over the last 7 years John has also served as the attorney-coach for the Hampden Academy Mock Trial Team. Mr. Woodcock is well-qualified for this position, as evidenced by the unanimous decision of the Senate Judiciary Committee to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate on June 5, 2003. Moreover, the American Bar Association unanimously named John as ``well qualified''-- meaning, ``The nominee is at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community, has outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity, and either has demonstrated, or exhibited the capacity for, judicial temperament.'' In Maine, the Federal Judicial Nomination Advisory Committee that Senator Collins and I assembled--with over 270 combined years practicing law--selected John Woodcock as their top recommendation. And former Senator and Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen has said of John that, ``In his years of practice, John has developed a statewide reputation as a skilled litigator and an effective counselor. He has deep experience in litigation at trial and appellate levels and is well regarded throughout the Maine Bar.'' As I told the Judiciary Committee when I had the privilege of introducing John to the committee at his hearing on May 22, Maine's U.S. District Court has a long history, as one of the first such courts established in 1789. Should Mr. Woodcock be confirmed, he would become only the 16th judge appointed to the court by the President of the United States over its 213-year history. Moreover, the position for which Mr. Woodcock has been nominated is the lone Federal judge position in northern Maine. With John's record and qualifications, he has the depth of experience, the temperament, and the integrity demanded by the gravity of the office for which he has been chosen. He will uphold and enhance not only Maine's tradition of exceptional trial judges, but he will also reflect the finest ideals and expectations of our Federal judiciary. As I also told the Judiciary Committee, from a layman's point of view--the best trial judges are distinguished by their ability to balance several, sometimes competitive personal dynamics. They balance broad lie exposure with specific courtroom experience, raw legal aptitude with common sense, patience with firmness, and intellectual curiosity with focused decision-making. John Woodcock embodies all of those traits and characteristics, and with his substantial and broad legal and courtroom experience, as well as his keen intellect and perspective, solid character, and outstanding reputation, I am most proud to recommend to my colleagues that he be confirmed as Federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Maine. I ask unanimous consent a copy of Secretary Cohen's letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Grassley for all of his efforts and endeavors to move quickly to address this omission in the growth package that passed the U.S. Congress recently. I appreciate the fact that he has worked hard to assist us in reaching an agreement on this vital issue. I also express my appreciation to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, in making the difference in bridging all of the efforts to reach this decision today in passing this legislation. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, who has been a champion in this fight, both in the Senate Finance Committee on this issue and also on the refundability issue back in the 2001 tax cut, in which we included a refundable provision for the child tax credit. She certainly has been a strong ally and supporter, and I appreciate all of the efforts she has been involved in to make sure this accelerated refundability is a reality. I am pleased to have worked with all of my colleagues on this issue. I know it was not easy. There are differences on both sides with respect to some of these issues. But I think in the final analysis we are addressing an inequity that existed in the tax package that we passed in the Congress a few weeks ago. I think this agreement ultimately closes the fairness gap in economic relief for working American families. It ensures that 6.5 million families who were left out of the jobs and growth package enacted this year will now benefit from the child tax credit. And by acting so quickly, it will also ensure that these families will share in the rebate checks that qualifying families will receive in August under the growth package as well. This means 12 million children in low-income families will have the benefit of tax relief under the growth package. I think this is vitally important in redressing this wrong, in making sure we provide the kind of tax relief they deserve. Now, I heard here that working families don't shoulder the burden in the Federal Tax Code, but that isn't true. They do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes. In fact, payroll taxes have become an inordinate burden on working families. The agreement ensures that 6.5 million low-income families who would have been left out of the jobs and growth packages enacted this month will now benefit from the child tax credit. And by acting quickly, it ensures these families will also share in the rebate checks qualifying families will receive in August under the growth package. This agreement would not have been possible without the tenacious leadership of Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Minority Leader Daschle, who kept negotiations on track so the Senate could complete work this week. So I deeply appreciate their efforts. I thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, who has been a tireless champion in this fight. From the time I first offered the refundable child tax credit to the 2001 tax bill, Sentor Lincoln has been a strong ally and supporter, and we worked together again this year to include refundability in the Finance Committee-passed growth package. Over the past week I have been proud to work with her once again to ensure families omitted from the child credit would receive the refundable credit they deserve. I thank Finance Chairman Grassley, who quickly stepped forward last week to address this omission from the jobs and growth package, and has worked so graciously with Senator Lincoln and me to achieve this agreement. He and Ranking Member Baucus have made the difference in bridging differences over this legislation, and we appreciate their sincere efforts. Today we join to finish the job that Senator Lincoln and I started in 2001. At the signing of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which included the newly created partially refundable child tax credit, I wholeheartedly agreed with the President when he remarked that: Tax relief is a great achievement for the American people . . . tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class . . . (and) tax relief is compassionate and it is now on the way. Those are the same reasons we introduced a bill along with Senators John Warner, Jack Reed, Jim Jeffords, and others to ensure that we are as compassionate today about our tax relief as we were then. This bill is responsible because it is fully offset, and it makes sense because it brings relief to working families while helping our economy. The Lincoln-Snowe bill incorporated in this package makes the child tax credit refundable for families earing between $10,500 and $26,625, helping 12 million children--6.5 million families--and almost 73,000 children in my home State of Maine from nearly 44,000 families, who would not have received the full benefit under the original bill. But that is not all--in addition to helping working families we are also talking about military families, and this legislation will treat members of the military and their families more fairly as well. I know that as chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner was deeply concerned about omitting the one million children living in active duty military and military veteran families. With this legislation, those families--including 900 in Maine--will now benefit from refundability. The bottom line is, these men and women have sacrificed for us, they deserve the credit--the child tax credit. Our legislation would accelerate the refundable portion of the child tax credit under law from 10 to 15 percent retroactive beginning January 1 of this year. This would ensure the hardworking mothers and fathers of America, including members of the Armed Forces who earn less than $26,000 per year, will be able to benefit from the increase in the child tax credit that has just become law. It will also ensure the provision of the 2001 law that directly benefits them will also be accelerated as the law enacted last week accelerates all of the other child tax credit provisions. I know some have said, this is tax relief for people who don't pay taxes. To that argument, I would point out two factors. First, the Federal income tax--while a large share of the tax burden facing Americans, are not the only taxes people pay. In fact, a larger tax burden on low-income workers is the payroll tax. The extent of this burden is exacerbated when one realizes that fully 33 percent of all jobs in my home State, for example, do not pay a livable wage. Secondly, while I believe that all families could use a helping hand when it comes to paying for the rising costs of raising a family, once again, the children who would benefit from the enactment of this bill are children in working families--families that do pay taxes and, just like everyone else in these trying economic times, these people are struggling to get by. Consider that, in order to be eligible for the partially refundable credit, a parent needs to surpass an income threshold that is currently at $10,500 per year. That means that a parent needs to work more than just a full-time minimum wage job. However, this provision benefits more than just minimum wage workers. This provision assists some of our younger families. For instance, the base pay for a first-year soldier is $16,000 and it affects workers in our health care and social service sectors, where, for instance, in Maine paramedics in 2001 were only making an average of $22,000, or where our home health aides were making only an average of $18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our infrastructure and they deserve tax relief too. That is why I was disappointed the conferees chose to remove this provision from the jobs and growth package--a provision which was included in the bill both as it passed the Finance Committee, and when it was passed by the Senate. Today, we have the opportunity to take a step to correct this inequity. This bill also addresses provisions included in Chairman Grassley's proposal addressing the definition of a child in the Tax Code, and in addressing a marriage penalty under the original bill. The ``uniform definition of a child'' consolidates five separate definitions of a child in the Federal Tax Code, simplifying and clarifying the law. As a result, more families will more easily qualify for the benefits they need and deserve. Finally, the agreement will provide relief for married couples with children by addressing a marriage penalty under the existing child credit. Our agreement increases the threshold of the child tax credit for couples with children to $150,000. Importantly--and in keeping with the principles that have guided me throughout the budget and tax process this year--our bill pays for this tax relief by extending customs user fees that will expire this year and would need to be extended anyway. And in doing so we are not growing our already ballooning national deficit. This is critical in ensuring we do not add the debt burden on the very children that will benefit from this bill. Mr. President, Senate action today sends the message that relief for hardworking families won't take a back seat in America's tax code. It represents sound policy that Congress has already considered and adopted. It has the support of the White House, and I hope our colleagues in the House of Representatives will take up and pass this agreement promptly so it can be signed into law.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Lott to repeal the provisions in the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill that authorize an additional base closure round in 2005. Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, I along with many of my colleagues had serious questions about both the integrity of the base closing process itself as well as the actual benefits realized. Now, with acts of war committed against the United States, with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom ongoing, with our reservists having been calledup and our troops being deployed and the unpredictability of future missions, this is not the time to be considering the closure of additional bases. Indeed, now, more than at any time in recent history, I believe it is absolutely critical that this Nation not sacrifice valuable defense infrastructure. In addition, as we proceed in the stand up of the Department of Homeland Defense, we are still trying to understand the domestic military requirements of our nation. Until there is a complete assessment of these needs, we simply can't afford to lose more bases. After all, during previous base closure rounds over the last decade, the Northeast alone lost 49 bases, roughly 50 percent of what we had prior to BRAC. Furthermore, 173, or just under 35 percent of the installations on the East Coast, were closed during the previous rounds. Although the Department of Homeland Security will not take the place of the Department of Defense, all of our military installations will no doubt play a critical and prominent role in homeland security. Instead of chasing illusive savings, I believe the Department of Defense needs a comprehensive plan that identifies the operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support the services' national security requirements. Once property is relinquished and remediated, it is permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes. The administration and proponents of additional base closure rounds point out that reducing infrastructure has not kept pace with our post Cold war military force reductions. They say that bases must be downsized proportionate to the reduction in total force strength. However, the fact of the matter is, there is no straight line corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to support them. Keep in mind, that force levels may have to be revisited once again in light of the new anti-terror mission our military faces, and may well require an increase. So would we then go and buy back property that we have given up in future base closure rounds to build new bases - I think not. The Department of Defense hopes to eliminate 23 percent of its base structure in the 2005 BRAC round. That would exceed the 21 percent closed in all four of the previous rounds. Before we legislate defense- wide policy that will reduce the size and number of training areas critical to our force readiness, the Department of Defense ought to be able to tell us, through a comprehensive plan, the level of operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support our shifting national security requirements. Proponents argue that the administration's approach will be based upon military value and removes parochial and political factors from the process, but in reality, the administration's Efficient Facilities Initiative is more similar to past BRAC rounds than one might think. Much has been made of the de-politicization of the process by including ``military value,'' ``jointness,'' and the other criteria in the legislation. However, review of the last process reveals that these criteria are nearly identical to those used in the 1995 round. This is very disturbing, because in my view, the past BRAC rounds were not fair or equitable, and were not based solely on military value. I have been through BRAC before. And I have to say, I know how the criteria can be twisted to the advantage or disadvantage of a given facility. In fact we had not one but two Air Force generals defending the former Loring Air Force Base before a past BRAC commission; yet the Air Force claimed its facilities were ``well below average''--and this despite the fact that $300 million had been spent there over a ten year period to replace or upgrade nearly everything on the base and it ended up being closed on so-called ``quality of life'' issues even though that was never supposed to be part of the criteria. I strongly believe Congress must also consider the economic impact of base closures on communities in light of the uncertainty regarding the nation's economy and in those communities whose economy is tied to military installations, the threat of closure will provide a deterrent to any recovery. In August 2001, GAO issued an overview on the status of economic recovery, land transfers, and environmental cleanup in communities that lost bases during previous BRAC rounds. GAO found that the short term impact of a base closure was traumatic for the surrounding community and that economic recovery was dependent on several factors including the strength of the national economy, federal assistance programs totaling more than $1.2 billion, and an area's natural resources and economic diversity. Keep in mind, this assessment was done during a time of unprecedented economic growth and as GAO stated, the health of the national economy was critical to the ability of communities to adjust: ``Local officials have cited the strong national or regional economy as one explanation of why their communities have avoided economic harm and found new areas for growth.'' GAO also noted: ``Local officials from BRAC communities have stressed the importance of having a strong national economy and local industries that could soften the impact of job losses from a base closure.'' With the slow-down of the economy, communities may not be able to rebound to the extent they have in previous years. Indeed, it is vital to note that not every community affected by base closures has fared so well in the past--those in rural areas still experienced above average unemployment and below average per capita incomes. Advocates of base closure allege that billions of dollars will be saved, despite the fact that there is no consensus on the numbers among different sources. These estimates vary because, as the Congressional Budget Office explains, BRAC savings are really ``avoided costs.'' Because these avoided costs are not actual expenditures and cannot be recorded and tracked by the Defense Department accounting systems, they cannot be validated, which has led to inaccurate and overinflated estimates. The General Accounting Office found that land sales from the first base closure round in 1988 were estimated by Pentagon officials to produce $2.4 billion in revenue; however, as of 1995, the actual revenue generated was only $65.7 million. That's about 25 percent of the expected value. This type of overly optimistic accounting establishes a very poor foundation for initiating a policy that will have a permanent impact on both the military and the civilian communities surrounding these bases. I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and submarines, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defend our nation and its interests. I want to protect the economic viability of communities in every state. And I want to make absolutely sure that this nation maintains the military infrastructure it will need in the years to come to support the war of terrorism. We must not degrade the readiness of our armed forces by closing more bases, certainly not at this time. Certainly not without information on our future defense needs that we do not have. In closing, I reaffirm my opposition to legislation authorizing additional BRAC rounds and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Dorgan/Lott amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate Concurrent Resolution designating the week of June 9, 2003 as National Oceans Week. As a Nation with more than 95,000 miles of coastline, the United States is highly dependent on the resources and services of the oceans that affect many important aspects of our lives, often in ways we do not fully realize. As Chair of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, I believe it is important for us to recognize the many benefits that the oceans provide, and I am happy that 19 other Senators are joining me in sponsoring this Senate Concurrent Resolution that formally recognizes the ocean's many benefits. Our oceans are capable of significant biological productivity that produces food, which provides nourishment for citizens across the globe and sustains fishery dependent communities. Oceans regulate global climate and the cycling of oxygen, carbon, and water in our atmosphere, and oceans provide a vital means of transporting goods between countries and thereby support the global economy. In addition to these biological, physical, and economic benefits, the oceans remain a largely unexplored domain that can enrich our lives in countless other ways. For all these reasons and more, I believe it is important to recognize the many ways we rely upon the oceans. The capacity of the oceans to supply these resources and services, however, is finite. Much of our nation's attention is currently focused on several recent reports that point to the destructive nature of foreign overfishing, the negative impacts of harmful algal blooms and oil spills, and the coastal habitat loss associated with uncoordinated development activities. Collectively, these and other human impacts can significantly affect how oceans function. We need to be constantly looking for ways to minimize these impacts and help sustain the oceans' productive capacity, which in turn will provide us with the resources that enhance the quality of our lives. Given the extent to which the United States depends on and uses the oceans, it is incumbent upon us to take a leadership role in ocean science and conservation. We must recognize this responsibility and continue to seek ways to promote comprehensive stewardship and understanding of the ocean and the resources it contains. For this and other reasons, I co-sponsored Senator Hollings' legislation establishing the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, and I look forward to reviewing its recommendations later this year. The Resolution we are submitting today urges the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the week of June 9, 2003, with appropriate recognition, programs, and activities to further ocean literacy, education, and exploration. During this week on Capitol Hill, I am pleased to be an Honorary Co- host of Capitol Hill Oceans Week, a series of events and discussions designed to facilitate awareness of the oceans within the Congress. As a country, we should use this week to further expand our awareness of the oceans and engage in discussions and activities that will help ocean resource conservation. I would like to thank my fellow Senators who are joining me in this effort to establish National Oceans Week, and I hope that this week will help contribute to a better awareness of and appreciation for the oceans. It is through such efforts that ocean stewardship can expand and take hold as an important national ethic. (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 regarding the conference agreement on the jobs and growth tax package that is before the Senate. I very much regret I am unable to support this final conference report, specifically as it relies on artifical ``sunsets'' to mask the true size of the tax cuts. Regrettably, it represents neither sound fiscal nor economic policies and could balloon Federal budget deficits even further. Indeed, at its heart, this is a trillion-dollar tax cut masquerading as a $350 billion tax cut, and in keeping with the principles I have outlined from the outset of this debate, I cannot support it. From the beginning, I have stated my concern not only about the size but also the content of any tax cut package. Because we need a strong stimulus to create jobs and grow the economy--while accomplishing this with sound policy and without creating deficits in perpetuity. While I am pleased this bill technically adheres to the agreement I reached to limit the overall size of the growth package of $350 billion over 10 years, it shortchanges some of the most stimulative aspects with sunsets that could lead to larger Federal deficits. Even proponents of the package acknowledge that they do not expect the tax cuts to expire or sunset as anticipated, so this package will likely grow to a true 10-year cost of at least $650 billion or even $1 trillion. In other words, with the sunsets, it can be said this is more like $350 billion over 2 years. And indeed, nonpartisan public policy organizations like the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, have estimated the overall 10-year cost of the tax cut legislation ranging from $659 billion to more than $1 trillion. At a time when we are facing historically high budget deficits expected to exceed $400 billion this year alone--the largest in history--this tax cut may grow deficits to levels economists fear will be unsustainable. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said again just this week, ``deficits do matter'', and could reduce future economic growth. Furthermore, I have made a priority of providing the type of short- term economic boost needed to encourage job creation and spur growth in the economy. I have based my approach to this package on the stimulative portions of the President's jobs and growth package, which totaled $329 billion, and fiscal relief for States and local communities, which totaled $20 billion. Moreover, the conference package reduces the size and impact of proposals such as acceleration of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the duration of proposals to spur investment by small business, with hidden costs of between $319 billion and $709 billion if the tax cuts were extended for the life of the bill. I would also note for the record that the conference agreement eliminates the refundable portion of the child tax credit that I sponsored along with Senator Lincoln that extends the reach of the tax package to all full-time working families. The elimination of this provision, estimated to cost about $4 billion over the life of the bill, will exclude about 12 million children nationwide, and 40,000 children in Maine, who would otherwise benefit from the legislation. I have made clear from the start that I agree with President Bush's goal of passing a stimulus plan to encourage growth in the economy and create jobs. I have also discussed my concern that creating unsustainable, long-term deficits would seriously inhibit our ability to address pressing domestic challenges--such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare--as well as subject future generations to the corrosive effects of the higher interests rates that result from deficits. As a result, I joined with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, and Breaux in signing a letter before consideration of the budget resolution to limit the size of the tax package. In that letter, we stated our belief that ``our nation would benefit from an economic growth package that would effectively and immediately create jobs and encourage investment.'' But we also expressed our belief that ``any growth package that is enacted through reconciliation this year must be limited to $350 billion in deficit financing over 10 years and any tax cuts beyond this level must be offset.'' This has been a critical guiding principle for me during this process. That is why I supported the strong stimulus plan I helped craft in the Senate Finance Committee, which incorporated--within the $350 billion 10-year framework--all of the stimulative aspects of the President's growth package in their entirety, provided significant dividend tax relief that would have reached all investors, and eliminated the double tax on dividends for 84.7 percent of all taxpayers. Senator Gordon Smith and I were also able to secure within that Finance Committee package a measure that conveyed $20 billion in fiscal relief to States and local communities--and I am disappointed that this conference report limits this relief to States only, ignoring the needs of our municipalities. Under the conference report, the $20 billion is divided equally between the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage, or ``FMAP'', and $10 billion in flexible grants to State governments. As I have stated in the past, State fiscal relief is crucial to stimulating the economy--as 46 of the 50 States, including Maine, are facing budget shortfalls due to lower than predicted revenues because of the depressed economy and September 11; increased costs associated with Federal mandates; and, increasing health care costs. There is no question the Federal Government must provide fiscal relief--and this will go a long way toward stimulating growth in the economy. Yet I remain distressed that conferees chose to omit aid for local governments. Finally, this legislation will quadruple the amount a small business can expense, from $25,00 to $100,000. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I certainly support this. However, regrettably, this legislation before us will also sunset this provision after just 3 years. I am disappointed there are those who chose to tap this stimulative measure to finance long-term changes to law. Mr. President, in conclusion, I would like to be able to say I support this package--I would like to vote for it, but I am unable, as it runs counter to the principles I have laid out during this entire process in terms of the size of the cuts and the content of the package. Therefore, I will not be supporting this conference report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' in recognition of the critical potential that women entrepreneurs hold for the Nation's economic welfare. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bond and Burns in offering this important legislation. Today, women own nearly a third of the Nation's small businesses-- totaling nearly 7 million women-owned enterprises that contribute approximately $1.2 trillion to be economy annually. That number, however, does not include jointly owned businesses in which women play a major role but hold less than fifty percent of the ownership rights. So, the actual number of women with significant roles in business goes well beyond 7 million--and they are growing rapidly. These figures reflect the successes that women entrepreneurs are having despite facing the same challenges for the past twenty years-- access to business assistance, access to capital, and access to Federal Government contract opportunities. The ``glass ceiling'' in corporate America that led many women to start a small business has been transformed into a another obstacle--``a glass doorway''--between women who want to start and grow businesses and the lending and Federal contract markets these women entrepreneurs seek to enter. Overcoming these obstacles requires that women are provided the business assistance tools they need, which we can ensure through the programs and services established within the Small Business Administration, SBA, specifically for women. As the new Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I have been carefully examining the SBA's programs with a particular focus on the agency's initiatives that are intended to foster women-owned businesses. During the past year, witnesses and participants of the Committee's hearings and roundtables clearly identified the concerns of women business owners: the lack of business assistance programs for existing small businesses; scarcity of financial resources for start-up or expansion; limited opportunities for Federal Government contracts; and the need for specific research on women's business ownership. In addition, we heard concerns from the Women's Business Centers and their advocates about the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Grants Program, which sunsets in 2003. These centers have been extraordinarily successful in providing assistance to women in all walks of life--those who once received public assistance but now operate businesses and create jobs; women transitioning from employee to small business employer; and establish women-business owners who create and manufacture products for sale at home and abroad. The Centers nurture women entrepreneurs through business and financial planning and help with critical issues like securing funding for startup and expansion. Despite these successes, however, funding questions have long plagued the program. Adding to the information gained from its official activities, the Committee staff also conducted a review of all SBA funded and sponsored activities for women entrepreneurs, held discussions with women business leaders, and obtained information in the process of preparing for the reauthorization of SBA Non-Credit Programs. Our findings support specific changes to ensure that the SBA will be more accountable in its delivery of programs and services through the Office of Women's Business Ownership. Specifically, based on the need and the impressive record of the Women's Business Centers, there is strong support for making the program permanent, provided that the SBA streamlines the grants administration processes. Improvements in the focus and operations for the National Women's Business Council and the Women's Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise would also enhance their missions and ability to serve women entrepreneurs. The bill I introduce today is designed to address these issues and improve the programs and services that the SBA delivers across the nation for women business owners through the 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. The key elements of the bill's improvements will provide direction, consolidation and integration of existing programs that have been previously created to offer opportunities for women through their entrepreneurial endeavors. The ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' would improve the entrepreneurial environment for women seeking assistance and opportunity through Federal Government sponsored programs. A key to the success of this bill is the integration of all internal and external SBA programs and partnerships. The provisions in this bill are timely and in response to the many concerns of women business owners that I have received from my constituents in Maine and from across the country through the Small Business Committee. Additionally, the bill makes the Women's Business Center a permanent program for existing eligible Centers so that women can depend on the experienced services of small business long-term counseling and small business education and training. The Centers have proven to be a great value the communities they serve so we must ensure that their programs and services continue to be available. The ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' ensure that women entrepreneurs at all stages of business ownership get the assistance they need so that success through business growth is more easily obtained. And it achieves that goal, not by establish costly new initiatives, but by building on successful establish programs within the SBA and improving their delivery for the benefit of current and future women entrepreneurs. As the Small Business Committee continues its work on legislation to reauthorize the SBA, we will be addressing all of the agency's programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the provisions of this bill are included so the growth of women owned business in America can reach its full potential. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed into the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to extend Federal emergency unemployment benefits to the millions of Americans who have exhausted their regular benefits. I strongly believe that, given the state of the economy, Congress has an obligation to extend the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program before we leave for the Memorial Day recess. This is especially urgent when considering the U.S. Department of Labor has estimated that by the end of 2003 more than 2.1 million workers will have exhausted their State unemployment compensation benefits without finding work. In my State of Maine, almost 11,000 unemployed Maine workers are projected to exhaust their State and Federal unemployment benefits in the next 6 months and more than one- quarter of these workers, 26 percent, will have exhausted all benefits available under the extension and still be unable to find work. The bill before us today is similar to Senator Murkowski's legislation, S. 1079, of which I am a cosponsor, and is an extension of the current Federal TEUC program due to expire at the end of May. H.R. 2185 will extend TEUC for an additional 7 months, to December 31, 2003, and will provide benefits to an estimated 2.1 million Americans. But we must think of these many millions of unemployed Americans as more than just numbers. In Maine, they live in towns like Millinocket, Old Town, and Sanford, where large, established employers have either closed their doors or downsized, and in the process forced longtime workers onto the unemployment rolls. If the program is not extended, according to the Maine Department of Labor, 6,000 Maine workers will exhaust their State unemployment benefits without ever receiving any Federal benefits. Extending temporary Federal benefits is particularly important for hard-hit mill towns like Millinocket, where every store and every landlord has been affected by the layoffs. The TEUC program can get help to those individuals and those communities that need it most. In closing, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical for Congress to continue to provide the temporary support to families who have been hurt by the economic downturn, and give these families access to the resources they need to stay afloat until they can find new, gainful employment. As such, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version of H.R. 2185, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' in recognition of the critical potential that women entrepreneurs hold for the Nation's economic welfare. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bond and Burns in offering this important legislation. Today, women own nearly a third of the Nation's small businesses-- totaling nearly 7 million women-owned enterprises that contribute approximately $1.2 trillion to be economy annually. That number, however, does not include jointly owned businesses in which women play a major role but hold less than fifty percent of the ownership rights. So, the actual number of women with significant roles in business goes well beyond 7 million--and they are growing rapidly. These figures reflect the successes that women entrepreneurs are having despite facing the same challenges for the past twenty years-- access to business assistance, access to capital, and access to Federal Government contract opportunities. The ``glass ceiling'' in corporate America that led many women to start a small business has been transformed into a another obstacle--``a glass doorway''--between women who want to start and grow businesses and the lending and Federal contract markets these women entrepreneurs seek to enter. Overcoming these obstacles requires that women are provided the business assistance tools they need, which we can ensure through the programs and services established within the Small Business Administration, SBA, specifically for women. As the new Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I have been carefully examining the SBA's programs with a particular focus on the agency's initiatives that are intended to foster women-owned businesses. During the past year, witnesses and participants of the Committee's hearings and roundtables clearly identified the concerns of women business owners: the lack of business assistance programs for existing small businesses; scarcity of financial resources for start-up or expansion; limited opportunities for Federal Government contracts; and the need for specific research on women's business ownership. In addition, we heard concerns from the Women's Business Centers and their advocates about the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Grants Program, which sunsets in 2003. These centers have been extraordinarily successful in providing assistance to women in all walks of life--those who once received public assistance but now operate businesses and create jobs; women transitioning from employee to small business employer; and establish women-business owners who create and manufacture products for sale at home and abroad. The Centers nurture women entrepreneurs through business and financial planning and help with critical issues like securing funding for startup and expansion. Despite these successes, however, funding questions have long plagued the program. Adding to the information gained from its official activities, the Committee staff also conducted a review of all SBA funded and sponsored activities for women entrepreneurs, held discussions with women business leaders, and obtained information in the process of preparing for the reauthorization of SBA Non-Credit Programs. Our findings support specific changes to ensure that the SBA will be more accountable in its delivery of programs and services through the Office of Women's Business Ownership. Specifically, based on the need and the impressive record of the Women's Business Centers, there is strong support for making the program permanent, provided that the SBA streamlines the grants administration processes. Improvements in the focus and operations for the National Women's Business Council and the Women's Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise would also enhance their missions and ability to serve women entrepreneurs. The bill I introduce today is designed to address these issues and improve the programs and services that the SBA delivers across the nation for women business owners through the 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. The key elements of the bill's improvements will provide direction, consolidation and integration of existing programs that have been previously created to offer opportunities for women through their entrepreneurial endeavors. The ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' would improve the entrepreneurial environment for women seeking assistance and opportunity through Federal Government sponsored programs. A key to the success of this bill is the integration of all internal and external SBA programs and partnerships. The provisions in this bill are timely and in response to the many concerns of women business owners that I have received from my constituents in Maine and from across the country through the Small Business Committee. Additionally, the bill makes the Women's Business Center a permanent program for existing eligible Centers so that women can depend on the experienced services of small business long-term counseling and small business education and training. The Centers have proven to be a great value the communities they serve so we must ensure that their programs and services continue to be available. The ``Women's Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 2003'' ensure that women entrepreneurs at all stages of business ownership get the assistance they need so that success through business growth is more easily obtained. And it achieves that goal, not by establish costly new initiatives, but by building on successful establish programs within the SBA and improving their delivery for the benefit of current and future women entrepreneurs. As the Small Business Committee continues its work on legislation to reauthorize the SBA, we will be addressing all of the agency's programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the provisions of this bill are included so the growth of women owned business in America can reach its full potential. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed into the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Senate version of the fiscal year 2004 national Defense authorization bill. First, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their work on this vital legislation. As a former member of the committee, I am acutely aware of the intense effort required to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to the floor every year. For the chairman and ranking member to be able to bring this bill to the floor with a unanimous vote out of committee is a testament to their leadership. I would also like to thank each of my colleagues who are members of the committee for their invaluable contributions to this bill. I will take a few moments and discuss some of the provisions of the bill that I believe are important to providing the men and women of our armed services the tools they need to protect our Nation. First and foremost, I am encouraged that the committee has supported the President's shipbuilding budget that will provide the Navy with an additional seven ships. As the former Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I have been concerned for many years about the downward trend in naval shipbuilding that was moving us inexorably towards a 250-ship Navy or less. The administration proposed in its budget to procure seven new Navy ships in fiscal year 2004 and a total of 52 new Navy ships through fiscal year 2009. While this results in an average build rate of 8.6 ships, almost at the 8.9 ships per year necessary to maintain a 310-ship fleet, this average is skewed by the 14 ships the Navy says it intends to build in fiscal year 2009. Fourteen ships is twice the number of ships we have in the bill for fiscal year 2004. Indeed, if we just look at the proposed shipbuilding plan for the next 5 years, from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008, there are only 38 ships in the plan, an average of 7.6 ships per year. This is an improvement but still results in the inability to maintain a 310-ship Navy, much less the 360- to 375-ship Navy the current Chief of Naval Operations has said is required to support his Sea Power 21 vision. We can't afford to risk this essential component of our worldwide defense force. After all, 80 percent of the planet's population lives along the coastal plains of the world, and it is the Navy that has the capability to project power in regional coastal flashpoints around the globe--a capability that is imperative if we are to maintain military superiority and defend America's national interests in the 21st century. It is the Navy we increasingly rely on to engage the enemy away from our shores. As we saw during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Navy provides our only means of assured access. Today we are engaged in Southwest Asia and other littoral areas of the world away from our cold war bases in Europe, Japan, and Korea. Our inability to land troops in Turkey during Operation Iraqi Freedom and our withdrawal from bases in Saudi Arabia only highlight the need for a flexible, mobile sea-based defense. The strength of those surface action groups and carrier battle groups are our major surface combatants. They provide air defense, launch Tomahawk missiles to strike the enemy, interdict opposing naval forces--they truly are the backbone of the fleet. We must do everything we can to ensure that we maintain a strong and healthy shipbuilding base particularly with respect to major surface combatants, for it is only through healthy competition that fresh ideas and reduced costs can be achieved. To maintain a 116-ship surface combatant force, given the projected service life of 35 years for DDG-51 Class ships, requires a sustained replacement rate of over three ships per year. If you assume a 30-year service life, which is more realistic historically, sustaining even the 116- ship surface combatant force would require annual procurement of almost 4 DDGs each year. I believe it is in the vital national interest of America to procure a minimum of three major surface combatants a year, not just this year or next, but in every year. I am encouraged that this bill supports that level of procurement. We must also look to the future and work to increase the warfighting capability and operating efficiency of these Aegis destroyers as they age. We must embark on a modernization program now to incorporate new technologies and systems that will allow us to operate these vessels more effectively with reduced manpower. This bill begins that process by authorizing $20 million for the design, nonrecurring engineering and installation planning of DDG-51 modernization and optimized manning upgrades for incorporation on fiscal year 2004 and/or fiscal year 2005 new construction ships. The bill also supports the President's request for $158 million for the Littoral Combat Ship in the R&D accounts. However, just as the committee is, I am concerned about counting on an undeveloped ship concept to provide the 375-ship force structure called for by the Chief of Naval Operations and its concomitant impact on the major surface combatant force. I support the bill's call for a determination, through a cycle of analysis and experimentation, of the ship's ability to deliver the expected capabilities. Furthermore, the bill correctly identified the looming gap in attack submarines by noting that decommissioning the USS Jacksonville, rather than refueling her, would put the Navy below the QDR recommended attack submarine force of 55 submarines. In fact, the Navy also recognized this gap and placed the refueling of the USS Jacksonville on the Navy's Unfunded Program List to support near term submarine force structure. This bill authorizes $248 million for that refueling overhaul, noting the need for the refueling as ``compelling.'' I cannot express strongly enough my belief that we must fund shipbuilding to reflect the increasing demands we place on the Navy. The $12 billion included in this bill is needed and appreciated, but it only represents about 3 percent of the total defense budget. For all we expect of our Navy in today's world, we must do everything we can to provide them with the ships and weapons systems they need. In regard to the homeland security role of the Department of Defense, the bill authorizes an additional $400 million over the President's budget request to expand unit capabilities, field additional sensor systems, and prepare to engage the threat here and abroad. For example, the bill contains an additional $107 million for those special operations forces that have been so effective in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. At home, DoD will be able to deploy an additional 12 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams with the funds provided in this bill. In addition, it also provides $173 million for chemical and biological detection and protection technologies such as those being developed in my home State of Maine. The University of Maine system has been on the forefront of the development of chemical and biological sensors and decontamination systems. The bill provides them with $1 million this year to begin the development of an environmentally friendly photocatalytic decontamination agent that holds much promise for the safe and rapid decontamination of exposed personnel as well as for the remediation of chemical agent and manufacturing and storage facilities. It is this type of investment in new science and technology efforts that will provide our forces with the advanced capabilities we saw used so effectively over the past 2 months. I am encouraged that this bill provides $10.7 billion for the science and technology accounts which brings us close to the goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the ``seed corn'' of our future military capability. From that investment we see the expansion in our research, development and test and evaluation efforts as evidenced by the commitment of $63.2 billion toward those activities, including over a billion in DD(X) destroyer R&D. The bill also addresses the need to modernize our military infrastructure by authorizing over $9.0 billion in military construction, an increase of $373 million over the budget request including the addition of $200 million for quality-of-life projects for members and their families. This bill wisely increases investments in stateside facilities while reducing investments overseas while the United States assesses its long-term overseas basing requirements. Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to the men and women in the Armed Forces and their families through the enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it institutes a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise and once again provides an additional targeted pay raise for the senior noncommissioned officers and midcareer personnel who are the backbone of our military. The bill contains several provisions which will directly aid the families of service members such as an increase in the family separation allowance and a high-tempo allowance of $1,000 per month for those troops and sailors deployed away from home for extended periods of time. Can any of us who watched the poignant homecoming of the USS Abraham Lincoln earlier this month after 10 months at sea, the longest carrier deployment since Vietnam, doubt that those dedicated sailors and marines had earned every penny? In closing, let me say that I hope that as we move this bill towards final passage, we do everything we can to strengthen the bill for those brave young men and women who defend our Nation each and every day. We must do no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the Murray-Snowe amendment. I comment Senator Murray for her strong and unflagging leadership on this issue, and am pleased to once again join with her on the critical amendment to the Department of Defense authorization. I am pleased to join my colleague in support of this amendment to repeal the ban on abortions at overseas military hospitals, an amendment whose time has long since come. Year after year, time after time, debate after debate, we revisit the issue of women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. While at times we are able to take one step forward we end up taking two steps back. Last year we were able to garner a majority of the Senate only to have this language removed in conference. I believe that ultimately, we will prevail, that my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol will realize that this is a policy change that makes sense, and I hope that will occur on this reauthorization. When we last considered this amendment, almost 11 months ago to the day, we had more than 378,000 troops stationed overseas, today we have over 10,000 more. Of those more than 35,000 of these troops were women as of April 2002 and women make up almost 36,500 of the troops today. We recognize the impact that the failure to repeal this ban has on so many of these women. Since last year's reauthorization debate, the Commander-in-Chief has called our Nation's military into action on another front. As we watched the 24 hour news stations' broadcasting reports from their embedded reporters, we saw more female faces amongst the troops than ever before. We are considering this Defense authorization during a time of war when Americans, both civilian and military, are fighting terrorism and tyranny all across the globe, both men and women. These women, these soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, deserve access to the same health services that women here in the States have. As I think about this last conflict, it occurs to me how ironic it is that the very people who are fighting to preserve our freedoms, those who are on the front lines defending this war on terrorism or other parts of the globe, are supporting those who are fighting, are currently the least protected in terms of the right to make choices about their own personal health and reproductive decisions. ``That is why I stand to join my colleague, Senator Murray, once again in overturning this ban on privately funded abortion services in overseas military hospitals, for military women and dependents based overseas, which was reinstated in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill, as we all know. It is a ban without merit or reason that put the reproductive health of these women at risk. Specifically, as we know, the ban denies the right to choose for female military personnel and dependents. It effectively denies those women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the armed services safe and legal medical care simply because they were assigned duty in another country. It makes me wonder why Congress would, year after year, continue to leave these women who so bravely serve our country overseas with no choice by denying them the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution? Our task in this debate is to make sure that all of America's women, including those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and military dependents, are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose. Our task is not to pay for abortions with Federal funding--contrary to what our opponents may claim, after all, since 1979 the Federal law has prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions at military hospitals. This amendment would not change that. However, what it would do is reinstate the policy that was in place from 1979 to 1988, when women could use their own personal funds to pay for the medical care they need. In 1988, the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting the performance of any abortions at military hospitals even if it was paid for out of a woman's private funds--a policy which truly defies logic. President Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993, by Executive order, restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with private, non-Defense Department funds. Just when we had thought that logic would prevail, in 1995, through the very bill we authorize today, the House International Security Committee reinstated this ban which was then retained in the conference. And here we are 8 years later trying to undo this unnecessary threat to our female servicewomen. Let me take a moment to reiterate a very important point. President Clinton's Executive order did not change existing law prohibiting the use of Federal funds for abortion, and it did not require medical providers to perform those abortions. In fact, all three branches of the military have conscience clauses which permit medical personnel with moral, religious, or ethical objections to abortion not to participate in the procedure. I believe that is a reasonable measure and one I do not take issue with. Opponents of this amendment argue that changing current law means that military personnel and military facilities are charged with performing abortions, and that this, in turn, means that American taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortions. This is a wholly and fundamentally incorrect. Every person who has ever been in a hospital for any type of procedure knows full well that the hospital and the physician is able to account for every charge, the cost of every minute, every physician, every nurse, each aspirin, the supplies, the materials, the overheads, the insurance, anything that is part of the procedure. Under this amendment, every expense is included in the cost that is paid by private funds. Public funds are not used for the performance of abortions in this instance. That is an important distinction to reinforce today. I know it is easy to confuse the debate, to obfuscate the issues. What we are talking about here is restricting how a woman using her own private insurance or money in support of that procedure. We are not talking about using Federal funds. This amendment we are fighting for is to lift the ban on privately funded abortions paid for with a woman's private funds. That is what this issue is all about. Proponents of this amendment believe that a woman would have the ability to have access to a constitutional right when it comes to her reproductive freedom to use her own funds, her own health insurance, for access to this procedure. Congress works hard at times of war, and at times of peace, to support our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as their dependents, our armed services and our armed forces have no better friend and ally than the Congress. I would argue that is the case in most situations, but obviously there is a different standard when it comes to the health of a woman and her reproductive decisions. This is especially confounding when we all completely agree that our military members and their families have sacrificed a lot, including their lives, for the sake of our Nation and what we believe. For those women overseas we are asking them to potentially, and unnecessarily, sacrifice their health under this ban. Making this type of decision is perhaps the most fundamental, personal, and difficult decision a woman can face. It is a very personal decision. It is a decision that should be made between a woman, her doctor, her family. It is a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right that should extend to women in the military overseas, not just within the boundaries of the United States. I think it is regrettable that somehow we have demeaned women, in terms of this very difficult decision that they have to make. There has been example upon example given to us, to my colleague Senator Murray, about the trying circumstances that this prohibition has placed on women who serve in the military abroad. I do not think for one moment anybody should minimize or underestimate the emotional, physical hardship that this ban has imposed, a ban that prohibits a woman from using her own private health insurance, her own private funds to make her own constitutional decision when she happens to be in the military serving abroad. The ban on abortions in military hospitals coerce the women who serve our country into making decisions and choices they would not otherwise make. As one doctor, a physician from Oregon, recalls his days as a Navy doctor stationed in the Philippines, he describes the experiences and hardships that result unnecessarily from this policy. Women have to travel long distances in order to obtain a legal abortion--not necessarily a safe abortion, but a legal one. Travel arrangements that are difficult and expensive. Not to mention the fact that in order to take leave, they had to justify taking emergency leave to their commanding officer. Imagine that circumstance. Forcing women to make a very personal decision so well known. However, for those women who choose to find an alternative, their only option is to turn to local, illegal abortions. In other circumstances, their dignity was offended and often their health was placed at risk, which was certainly reinforced by the letter that was sent to both Senator Murray and from now retired, Lt. Gen. Kennedy, the highest ranking woman in the military. She speaks with great perspective about the humiliation and the demeaning circumstances in which many women were placed, not to mention putting their health at risk. I hope we can overturn this prohibition in law and grant women in the military the same constitutional right that is afforded women who live within the boundaries of the United States of America. No one should leave their constitutional rights at the proverbial door, but that is what this ban has done. Our constitutional rights are not territorial and women who serve their country should be afforded the same rights that women here in America have. I think this ban is not consistent with the principles which our Armed Forces are fighting to protect, and which the American people so overwhelmingly support. I hope we move forward, and I hope we would understand that women in the military and their dependents overseas deserve the same rights that women have here in this country. They have and should have the protections of the Constitution, no matter where they live. I hope the Senate will overturn that ban and will support the amendment offered by Senator Murray and myself.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to introduce the Fishing Quota Act of 2003 which will address one of the most complex policy questions in fisheries management--fishing quotas. This bill will amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize the establishment of new fishing quota systems. This legislation will in no way whatsoever force Fishing Quota programs upon any regional fishery management council and this is not a mandate to use Fishing Quota programs. Rather, it is intended to provide the councils with an additional conservation and management tool. Fishing Quota programs can drastically change the face of fishing communities and the fundamental principles of conservation and management. Therefore, this legislation was developed in a careful and meaningful manner over the span of many years with significant input and participation from all of the many affected and interested parties. In 1996, Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, SFA. The SFA contained the most substantial improvements to fisheries conservation since the original passage of the Magnuson- Stevens Act in 1976. More specifically, the SFA included a five year moratorium on new fishing quota programs and required the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, to study and report on the issue. In 1999, the NAS issued its report, Sharing the Fish, which contained a number of critically important recommendations addressing the social, economic, and biological aspects of Fishing Quota programs. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 incorporates many of the recommendations in this report and provides the regional councils with the flexibility to adopt additional NAS recommendations. During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries traveled across the country and held six hearings on reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We began the process in Washington, DC, and then visited fishing communities in Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts. During the course of those hearings, we heard official testimony from over 70 witnesses and received statements from many more fishermen during open microphone sessions at each field hearing. The Subcommittee heard the comments, views, and recommendations of Federal and State officials, regional council chairmen and members, other fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the conservation community, and many other interested in these important issues. After these hearings, I introduced the Individual Fishing Quota Act of 2001, S. 637, at the beginning of the 107th Congress beginning the legislative dialogue. Since then, we have heard from many stakeholders who assisted the Subcommittee in shaping and re-shaping this bill. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 creates a framework under which fishery management plans, FMPs, or plan amendments may establish a new fishing quota system. As with other components of fisheries conservation and management, there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' solution to Fishing Quota programs. Therefore, this bill sets certain conditions under which Fishing Quota programs may be developed, if such a program is desired. In doing so, it clearly provides the regional fishery management councils and the affected fishermen with the flexibility to shape any new Fishing Quota program to fit the needs of the fishery. The bill ensures that any regional council which establishes a new fishing quota program will promote sustainable management of the fishery; require fair and equitable allocation of fishing quotas; minimize negative social and economic impacts on local coastal communities; ensure adequate enforcement of the system; and take into account present participation and historical fishing practices of the relevant fishery. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct referenda to ensure that those most affected by fishing quotas will have the opportunity to formally approve the adoption of any new fishing quota program by a two-thirds vote. This bill authorizes the potential allocation of fishing quotas to fishing vessel owners, fishermen, and crew members who are citizens of the United States. In addition, participation in the fishery is required for a person to obtain quota. Moreover, this bill permits councils to allocate quota shares to entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, or crew members who may not otherwise be eligible for individual quotas. While this bill authorizes the transfer of fishing quotas, it requires the regional councils to define and prohibit an excess accumulation of quota shares. This is a good bill which allows Fishing Quota programs to be created where they are needed and desired. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 incorporates many of the suggestions we heard from those men and women who fish for a living and those who are most affected by the law and its regulations. I appreciate the participation of Senator Kerry and all the impacted stakeholders who assisted in drafting this legislation. I look forward to moving this bill through the legislative process toward final passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to introduce the Fishing Quota Act of 2003 which will address one of the most complex policy questions in fisheries management--fishing quotas. This bill will amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize the establishment of new fishing quota systems. This legislation will in no way whatsoever force Fishing Quota programs upon any regional fishery management council and this is not a mandate to use Fishing Quota programs. Rather, it is intended to provide the councils with an additional conservation and management tool. Fishing Quota programs can drastically change the face of fishing communities and the fundamental principles of conservation and management. Therefore, this legislation was developed in a careful and meaningful manner over the span of many years with significant input and participation from all of the many affected and interested parties. In 1996, Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, SFA. The SFA contained the most substantial improvements to fisheries conservation since the original passage of the Magnuson- Stevens Act in 1976. More specifically, the SFA included a five year moratorium on new fishing quota programs and required the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, to study and report on the issue. In 1999, the NAS issued its report, Sharing the Fish, which contained a number of critically important recommendations addressing the social, economic, and biological aspects of Fishing Quota programs. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 incorporates many of the recommendations in this report and provides the regional councils with the flexibility to adopt additional NAS recommendations. During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries traveled across the country and held six hearings on reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We began the process in Washington, DC, and then visited fishing communities in Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Washington, and Massachusetts. During the course of those hearings, we heard official testimony from over 70 witnesses and received statements from many more fishermen during open microphone sessions at each field hearing. The Subcommittee heard the comments, views, and recommendations of Federal and State officials, regional council chairmen and members, other fisheries managers, commercial and recreational fishermen, members of the conservation community, and many other interested in these important issues. After these hearings, I introduced the Individual Fishing Quota Act of 2001, S. 637, at the beginning of the 107th Congress beginning the legislative dialogue. Since then, we have heard from many stakeholders who assisted the Subcommittee in shaping and re-shaping this bill. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 creates a framework under which fishery management plans, FMPs, or plan amendments may establish a new fishing quota system. As with other components of fisheries conservation and management, there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' solution to Fishing Quota programs. Therefore, this bill sets certain conditions under which Fishing Quota programs may be developed, if such a program is desired. In doing so, it clearly provides the regional fishery management councils and the affected fishermen with the flexibility to shape any new Fishing Quota program to fit the needs of the fishery. The bill ensures that any regional council which establishes a new fishing quota program will promote sustainable management of the fishery; require fair and equitable allocation of fishing quotas; minimize negative social and economic impacts on local coastal communities; ensure adequate enforcement of the system; and take into account present participation and historical fishing practices of the relevant fishery. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to conduct referenda to ensure that those most affected by fishing quotas will have the opportunity to formally approve the adoption of any new fishing quota program by a two-thirds vote. This bill authorizes the potential allocation of fishing quotas to fishing vessel owners, fishermen, and crew members who are citizens of the United States. In addition, participation in the fishery is required for a person to obtain quota. Moreover, this bill permits councils to allocate quota shares to entry-level fishermen, small vessel owners, or crew members who may not otherwise be eligible for individual quotas. While this bill authorizes the transfer of fishing quotas, it requires the regional councils to define and prohibit an excess accumulation of quota shares. This is a good bill which allows Fishing Quota programs to be created where they are needed and desired. The Fishing Quota Act of 2003 incorporates many of the suggestions we heard from those men and women who fish for a living and those who are most affected by the law and its regulations. I appreciate the participation of Senator Kerry and all the impacted stakeholders who assisted in drafting this legislation. I look forward to moving this bill through the legislative process toward final passage. 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 acknowledge the many thousands of bicycle commuters across the Nation who, by taking part in National Bike-to-Work Day on May 16, 2003, have chosen a healthy and pollution- free alternative to driving to work. In recognition of the importance of bicycle commuting and National Bike-to-Work Month, it is my pleasure to be joined by my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, to introduce legislation to extend the Transportation Fringe Benefit to bicycle commuters. By including bicycle commuting as an eligible mode of alternative transportation under the Transportation Fringe Benefit, this legislation will ensure that bicycle commuters will have access to the benefits already available to individuals who commute by mass transit and van-pool. The Transportation Fringe Benefit was added to the Tax Code to give individuals an incentive to use alternative modes of transportation. It is entirely voluntary for both employers and employees. Under current law, an employer may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to an employee who commutes by mass transit or van-pool and count that contribution as a business deduction. An employee of a participating company may choose to receive a tax-exempt benefit of $180 per month for qualified parking or $100 per month for mass transit or van-pool. The Bicycle Commuter Act simply adds bicycling as a qualifying transportation method. This straightforward but significant addition to the Transportation Fringe Benefit not only provides fairness to commuters traveling by bike, but would also help achieve the broader goals of the Transportation Fringe Benefit provision by encouraging healthy, environmental, community-oriented commuting. Consider a June 2002 study by the Texas Transportation Institute that details the growing severity of traffic congestion on our Nation's roadways--according to this study, commuters traveling during rush hour are encountering longer delays, rush hour periods themselves are growing, and more streets and highways are becoming congested. This rising trend of greater congestion costs both our Nation's economy and our environment. Thankfully, there are alternatives, and that is why I am introducing the Bicycle Commuter Act. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, over 20 percent of Americans used a bicycle for transportation within a 30-day study period. Combined with the fact that more than 50 percent of the working population has a work commute of 5 miles or fewer, bicycles present an opportunity for our Nation to reduce problems of grid lock, air pollution, and roadway wear and tear. Indeed, our Nation has made significant gains through mass transit and alternative transportation. However, more can and must be done--and I believe the Bicycle Commuter Act would be an important step in ensuring that our Nation's transportation policies recognize the potential benefits to the individual and community of bicycle commuting. I urge my colleagues to join myself and the Senator from Oregon in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the many thousands of bicycle commuters across the Nation who, by taking part in National Bike-to-Work Day on May 16, 2003, have chosen a healthy and pollution- free alternative to driving to work. In recognition of the importance of bicycle commuting and National Bike-to-Work Month, it is my pleasure to be joined by my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, to introduce legislation to extend the Transportation Fringe Benefit to bicycle commuters. By including bicycle commuting as an eligible mode of alternative transportation under the Transportation Fringe Benefit, this legislation will ensure that bicycle commuters will have access to the benefits already available to individuals who commute by mass transit and van-pool. The Transportation Fringe Benefit was added to the Tax Code to give individuals an incentive to use alternative modes of transportation. It is entirely voluntary for both employers and employees. Under current law, an employer may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to an employee who commutes by mass transit or van-pool and count that contribution as a business deduction. An employee of a participating company may choose to receive a tax-exempt benefit of $180 per month for qualified parking or $100 per month for mass transit or van-pool. The Bicycle Commuter Act simply adds bicycling as a qualifying transportation method. This straightforward but significant addition to the Transportation Fringe Benefit not only provides fairness to commuters traveling by bike, but would also help achieve the broader goals of the Transportation Fringe Benefit provision by encouraging healthy, environmental, community-oriented commuting. Consider a June 2002 study by the Texas Transportation Institute that details the growing severity of traffic congestion on our Nation's roadways--according to this study, commuters traveling during rush hour are encountering longer delays, rush hour periods themselves are growing, and more streets and highways are becoming congested. This rising trend of greater congestion costs both our Nation's economy and our environment. Thankfully, there are alternatives, and that is why I am introducing the Bicycle Commuter Act. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, over 20 percent of Americans used a bicycle for transportation within a 30-day study period. Combined with the fact that more than 50 percent of the working population has a work commute of 5 miles or fewer, bicycles present an opportunity for our Nation to reduce problems of grid lock, air pollution, and roadway wear and tear. Indeed, our Nation has made significant gains through mass transit and alternative transportation. However, more can and must be done--and I believe the Bicycle Commuter Act would be an important step in ensuring that our Nation's transportation policies recognize the potential benefits to the individual and community of bicycle commuting. I urge my colleagues to join myself and the Senator from Oregon in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the contract bundling amendment offered by Senators Collins, Talent, and Hutchison. As the new Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to create a policy specifically for the Department of Defense, DOD, on the issue of contract bundling and to place restrictions on the Department's ability to bundle Government contracts to the detriment of small businesses in this country. In fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government awarded close to $235 billion in Federal contracts. Yet, small businesses still received less than their fair share. As a result, the Federal Government failed to achieve the goal that we established for Federal agencies to ensure that at least 23 percent of Federal contracts go to small enterprises. Even more troubling is the fact that over the past 10 years, there has been a steady decline in the number of small business contractors receiving new contract awards. Despite our efforts over the past several years to focus on concrete measures and legislation to increase small business access to the Federal marketplace, we have instead seen a disturbing trend in the opposite direction. America's small businesses are being eroded by the practice of contract bundling by Federal agencies. In pursuing operational efficiencies, Federal agencies are making contract bundling decisions that block small business access to the opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, for every 100 bundled contracts awarded, small businesses lose an average of 60 contracts, and for every $100 awarded on a ``bundled'' contract, there is a $33 decrease to small business. At $109 billion in fiscal year 2001, bundled contracts cost small business $13 billion. The Small Business Act provides that small firms shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for these valuable Federal contracts. This policy was adopted because it is good for small business, good for the purchasing agencies, and good for the taxpayer who pays the bills. Small businesses benefit from having access to a stable revenue stream and to a marketplace for new products and services. In turn, these small vendors to the Federal Government contribute to business development, job creation and economic stimulation in our local communities. Federal agencies also benefit when small businesses participate in the Federal marketplace. Many of the most innovative solutions to our problems--such as new technologies in defense readiness--come from small firms, not large businesses, where complex chains of command, the need to consult with corporate headquarters, and repetitive sign-offs on a new idea that have to be cleared with accounting, human resources, and marketing, can stifle innovation and creativity. The absence of all these obstacles can increase the agility of a small business to deliver new innovative products at lower costs. Agencies trying to carry out their governmental functions can take advantage of these innovations and deliver better quality products and services to our constituents. Finally, the taxpayer wins when small businesses compete for contracts. Small business means more competition, lower prices and higher quality. Contract bundling, however, threatens these benefits. To simplify the contracting process, agencies take several smaller contracts and roll them into one massive contract. The result is a contract that a small business could not perform, due to its complexity or its obligation to do work in widely disparate geographic locations. This practice is particularly prevalent at the Department of Defense, which is the Federal Government's largest purchaser of goods and services. In light of this practice, it comes as little surprise when I hear a small business owner say all too often that ``I could not perform the contract, even if I won it. So I won't even bid.'' When that happens, we all lose. If small businesses create the majority of new jobs in America, which they do, and they account for half the output of the economy, which they do, then, they clearly deserve every possible chance to compete for the business of the nation's largest consumer--the Federal Government. For these reasons, I called a hearing 2 months ago in the Small Business Committee to examine the continuing threat of contract bundling to small business and to identify positive, constructive changes to ensure that the Federal Government continues to provide contracting opportunities for small businesses. The 1997 Small Business Administration reauthorization legislation established a definition of bundling and created an administrative process to review instances of bundling. By its terms, agencies are supposed to make a determination whether a proposed bundle is ``necessary and justified.'' Yet at the March 2003 hearing, witnesses testified that instead of making a good faith effort to determine the costs and benefits of a proposed bundling, Federal agencies, and Defense agencies in particular, have found ways to evade these ``necessary and justified'' determinations by identifying loopholes in the definition of bundling. As the largest agency in terms of contracting dollars spent, accounting for about two-thirds of the Federal Government's total spending, it is time to hold the Department of Defense accountable for these bundling determinations--to make sure they include small businesses in the Federal procurement process, and to make sure they follow the law. The amendment offered today provides a first step in our efforts to achieve positive constructive change to ensure the Department of Defense continues to provide contracting opportunities for small business. It closes loopholes and strengthens the bundling definition for the Department of Defense contract requirements. It also requires the Department of Defense to perform rigorous analysis on bundled contracts; to discuss alternative acquisition strategies; and, to make a determination that the benefits of bundling ``substantially exceed'' the benefits of the identified alternatives. This marks a higher level of scrutiny than exists under current law. I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to work together to establish legislation that counters the effects of contract bundling on small business. And, continuing in the spirit of cooperation, I look forward to building on this very positive language to address the issue more broadly and make this policy governmentwide as we move forward with legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Administration and its programs later this summer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most extraordinary and courageous people I have ever had the privilege to know. Mary Bowers was an integral and beloved member of my staff who sadly passed away on May 3 at the age of 28. My thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Wayne Rolland; her parents, Betty and Chris Bowers of Hermon, ME; Mary's sister, Melissa; and her entire family who she loved so deeply. Mary's life was all too tragically brief, but how rich it was in experience and love--and how profoundly she taught us all about the art of living. On a professional level, Mary was a tremendous asset to my staff, and I would be remiss not to recall the myriad ways in which she was the nucleus of the office. As my Maine scheduler and Assistant to the Chief of Staff, she was of extraordinary assistance, and it is no exaggeration to say that through her efforts the people of her home State of Maine--which she loved so dearly--were exceptionally well served. Yet, it should be said that Mary's most significant contributions sprang not from her work in my office--but instead from the positive and irrepressible force of her presence. I first came to know Mary as a young volunteer on my campaigns for Congress. She was passionate even then about politics, and the role that government and elected officials could play in securing for America the blessings and ideals upon which our Nation was founded. In an era when so many of our young people feel disaffected and disenfranchised, Mary believed deeply that involvement in the process could make a very real difference--that it was a responsibility and an obligation in return for the fruits of freedom and opportunity provided by the basic tenets of this great Nation. As her high school years drew to a close, Mary sought a nomination to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It was obvious by then she was not only a bright young woman, but possessed the kind of exceptional qualities that would make her a success both at the Academy and--even more importantly--in life--honesty, a commitment to service, an unassuming yet unmistakable confidence, and an intangible demeanor that inspired others to their better nature. Indeed, even early on, Mary embodied the essence of a leader. Later, as a member of my staff, she always took charge without ever ``taking over''. She would have made a brilliant Army officer--people would have followed her anywhere, responding to the genuine persuasiveness of her personality and the clarity of her vision. But Mary's greatest challenge was thrust upon her while at the Military Academy--one far greater than any obstacle course. Young, vibrant, full of promise--she learned she had cancer. In the months and years that followed, in all of the ways that truly count in this world, she would meet that challenge--and in the process forever change the lives of all who were blessed to know her. Perhaps what was most heroic about Mary is that she never allowed herself to be defined by her disease--yet the way in which she comported herself while fighting her disease epitomized her very essence--and will surely be the legacy that lives on in our hearts and the way in which we lead our own lives. Quite simply, Mary was a diminutive dynamo. Tiny in stature, she was a giant in her soul. Even as cancer sapped her physical strength, she possessed a deep, more spiritual reserve from which to draw. Certainly, there appeared no rational explanation for her ability to muster energy. We could no more understand how she defied the realities that cancer imposes on the human body and spirit than we could determine how she summoned such extraordinary courage. During her 4 years on my staff, she endured numerous, punishing treatments--none of which were subtle in their physical impact--even apologizing for having to go to doctor's appointments! Throughout it all, her attitude was unfailingly positive and gracious. Any of us would most certainly have excused Mary for any moodiness or bristling response, but the opportunity never arose. Rather, she was always more concerned for others than she was for herself. With unfailing humor, she had a way of disarming even the most stressful of moments and deflating the small absurdities that creep into everyday life. The treats she baked and brought into the office-- again, even when she was not feeling well--were a tangible gift from her heart. And while the rest of us would be affected by daily trials and tribulations of a much lesser nature, Mary was the one whose light shined into our lives and lifted our emotions. Indeed--her lifelong love of lighthouses was entirely appropriate, as she stood most firm when the seas were at their roughest . . . she was a beacon of brightness and hope . . . and her presence on the landscape of our lives will be enduring. Particularly in our line of work, we have the opportunity to meet a great many people--some of high title, others who are the unsung heros of our society. But the universe of those who truly change the course of our own lives by their example is much, much smaller. My staff and I will forever count Mary among those individuals. In my own life, I have known adversity. And yet, Mary has taught me lessons in living I had not yet fully realized. I know it is the same for my staff--who, to a man and woman loved and respected Mary and the example for which she stood. All of us will now be the personal messengers of her indomitable spirit and, in turn, that part of Mary that lives on within all of us will continue to impact the world forever, for the better. The measure of Mary's life will never be the crude yardstick of the number of years on earth, but rather the number of lives she touched while she was among us. In the words of the great American author Ralph Waldo Emerson, ``to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded.'' I could not agree more, and in that light Mary Bowers was most assuredly one of the most successful people one could ever hope to know. We love her and we will miss her more than words have the power to convey. I ask unanimous consent that a retrospective on Mary's life published by the Portland Press Herald be printed in the Record, as well as a copy of the eulogy delivered at her funeral service by my former Chief of Staff, Kevin Raye. [From the Portland Press Herald, May 6, 2003] Mary Bowers, 28, Small Senate Staffer Who Made Giant Impact (By Joshua L. Weinstein) Bangor.--Ask Mary Bowers' husband if his wife had any subtle ways of letting him know she loved him, and you'll hear: ``There was nothing subtle about Mary. She just told me that she loved me all the time.'' Mrs. Bowers, who died Saturday, was like a summer day in Maine: clear and sunny and not with us nearly long enough. She was only 28 when she died of ovarian cancer. ``She was courageous, she was funny and warm'' said her boss, Jane Calderwood, the chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe. ``She's mom to all of us . . . She was really the heart of the place.'' Mrs. Bowers doted on people, brought homemade chocolates to work, delighted in the little things. But she could be fierce. She was a tiny thing--maybe 5-foot-3, on her toes--but she had a way about her. Before she got sick, she decided on a career in the military. She was accepted to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and studied there two years before being diagnosed with cancer. She rallied, and landed at the University of Maine, where she graduated with high honors in political science. She worked briefly with Presidential Classroom, a Washington-based program for high school scholars, before joining Snowe's staff, where she was state scheduler and assistant to the chief of staff. She was beloved in Snowe's office. ``You could tell by her eyes when she was up to no good,'' Calderwood said. ``You could tell because there would be this glint. And if she walked into the room and she had that look, you'd be in trouble.'' Bowers's husband, Wayne Rolland, said his wife loved her nieces, loved her job, loved the Republican Party, loved history, loved politics. ``One of the funny things that she used to say, and it sounds kind of funny coming from a cancer patient, but she used to always say, ``It's better to look good than to feel good.' '' Mrs. Bowers always looked good, Rolland said. With her deep blue eyes and suits from Talbot's, maybe a few white daisies on her desk, Mrs. Bowers had style. She was a vegetarian who loved chocolate and the occasional glass of wine. She liked country music, especially Garth Brooks. She sang in the church choir when she was a girl, and one of her favorite gifts from her husband was a karaoke machine. She always used to sing Brooks' ``Friend in Low Places.'' She even sang it at her wedding. Mrs. Bowers loved the ocean, and collected lighthouses, along with Beanie Babies and candles. Lighthouses and candles made sense, Calderwood said. ``She was always the bright light.''

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak regarding the jobs and growth package that was reported by the Senate Finance Committee and that has been considered on the Senate floor. It was a long and often arduous journey that brought the bill here for consideration, and I especially thank the majority leader and Finance Chairman Grassley for their extraordinary and tireless efforts in ensuring we were able to pass a package in committee and consider this economic stimulus bill in the full Senate. Let us remember, this debate began when the President rightfully and forcefully made the case that we have an obligation to help jump-start an economy that was already in the doldrums even before the tragedy of September 11. Over the past few months--as we worked to pass a budget for the first time in 2 years and as the tax cut package moved through the respective House and Senate committees--some said the reductions should be smaller--some said larger--and others even believe that no cuts were warranted. Last week, the House passed a very different tax bill than the one the Senate is considering today, further reflecting the diversity of deeply held beliefs as to our appropriate course of action in Congress. I have believed since last fall that the American people must know we are serious about creating jobs with a plan that can be effective now. We have lost 2.3 million jobs since March 2001, and with 48,000 jobs lost in April alone, we have reached the highest level of unemployment in 8 years at 6 percent. In the last quarter of 2002, the economy was growing at a languid 1.4 percent annual rate, and the Commerce Department's latest report showed the economy was still at a weak growth rate of 1.6 percent. Consumer spending has increased more slowly than at any time since the 2001 recession, and capacity at the Nation's factories is at a low of 72 percent--meaning that demand can and must be increased. So the President is absolutely right to make passage of a robust growth package central to his agenda, and I applaud his unflagging leadership in rejuvenating our economy. At the same time, I have also held throughout this debate that to deficit-finance too high a level of tax cuts would be to risk condemning future generations to the corrosive economic effects of unsustainable deficits--and tying hands of future Congresses in addressing our most pressing domestic challenges. With a net $350 billion for stimulus, the package reported by the Finance Committee is consistent with these principles, and those that are embodied in a letter I signed along with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, and Breaux before consideration of the budget resolution. In that letter, we stated our belief that ``our nation would benefit from an economic growth package that would effectively and immediately create jobs and encourage investment.'' But we also expressed our belief that ``any growth package that is enacted through reconciliation this year must be limited to $350 billion in deficit financing over 10 years and any tax cuts beyond this level must be offset.'' So how did I arrive at 350? It was not by simply splitting the difference. It was by making a clear, bright-line distinction as to which measures were truly effective, short-term stimulus and which were not. The $350 billion package approved by the Finance Committee provides for all of the President's proposals that can truly have the immediate, stimulative effect our economy requires in their entirety. Indeed, as economist William Gale of the Brookings Institute has said, within that $350 billion figure, we would likely get most of the short- term job boost. To pay for dividend tax cuts that could create long-term growth, the Finance Committee package employs genuine offsets. With all the provisions of the committee plan in effect for the full 10 years-- accelerating policy that was already passed by the Congress in 2001--it creates the kind of continuity and stability for both markets and consumers that is critical in making investment and spending strategies. While some undoubtedly believe we should pass a significantly larger tax cut, let us remember that $350 billion in net tax cuts is by no means inconsequential. In fact, if enacted it may be the third largest tax cut in history--and is being considered just 2 years following the largest tax cut in history. Moreover, the Finance Committee bill is a responsible bill that recognizes the lessons learned from past debates on economic stimulus--that boosting both consumer purchasing power and business investment is vitally important to economic growth. For example, the package would cut the marginal tax rates across the board--impacting workers' paychecks by increasing their take-home pay this year. The bill also accelerates tax relief for families with children, including a provision not in either the President's plan or the House bill to accelerate the increase in the amount of the child tax credit that is refundable for working families with low incomes-- building on my inclusion of refundability in the 2001 tax package. Married couples would also receive tax relief from the unfair marriage penalty through the expansion of the standard deduction and the 15 percent tax bracket. To spur investment, the Finance Committee bill triples the amount a small business can write off for investments in new business assets-- and with small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers-- contributing to 51 percent of private-sector output--and providing about 75 percent of net new jobs, that is exactly the kind of policy that can help create jobs soon. It would also provide needed capital to small businesses by expanding the ability of pension plans and other tax-exempt entities to invest in the securities of Small Business Investment Companies. This provision alone is expected to create an additional 16,000 jobs due to the additional investment capital available for small businesses. Furthermore, the State fiscal relief provision in the Finance Committee plan can provide additional economic stimulus. With States facing combined shortfalls of more than $68 billion in fiscal year 04, I thank Chairman Grassley for working to include a ``trust fund'' in the package of $20 billion in relief for the States and local governments to use as they see fit to address increasing Medicaid costs, transportation needs, homeland security infrastructure, education, and other critical functions. I know some have argued State budget shortfalls result from overspending. Yet, as a report issued by the National Governors Association shows, State spending from 1995 to 2001 increased 6.5 percent per year, a rate identical to spending from 1979 to 2003, and I would like unanimous consent to print that report in the Record. I also have here a letter from the heads of the Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association documenting that States and localities are experiencing their worst fiscal conditions since World War II. I ask unanimous consent this letter also be printed in the Record along with my statement. Moreover, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, ``Analysts at Goldman Sachs figure state and local belt-tightening (in their budgets) will shave as much as a half-point from the economy's growth. . .'' By providing State fiscal relief, we have the opportunity to return that half-point of growth to our economy. And let us remember, dollars spent on education, health care, and transportation have an economic value today and tomorrow., Indeed, should State decide to use a portion of the assistance on transportation, it is worth nothing that, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for every $1 billion invested in transportation, 47,500 new jobs are created. And let us not forget that State and local governments account for more than 15 million jobs nationwide. As we take steps to put more money into the hands of consumers, we must also make sure that those who are employed by a State or local government, either directly or through a government service contract, are able to remain employed. On that note, I am pleased an amendment was included here on the floor to further refine the agreement and language that Senator Smith and I included in the growth package reported by the Senate Finance Committee. After working to generate strong bipartisan support for this issue, the Senate Finance committee established a $20 billion trust fund in S. 1054, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, to provide critical, flexible relief for both State and local governments. I also want to thank Chairman Grassley again for his willingness to work with me to identify appropriate offsets that enured this proposal would not increase the net cost of the growth package. By securing support in committee to include a $20 billion fiscal relief trust fund, I was able to ensure that States and localities receive the help they need in balancing their fiscal year 2004 budgets. The subsequent amendment we passed on the floor, with my support included my proposal which requires half of the $20 billion to be distributed between State and local governments--with States receiving $6 billion and localities receiving $4 billion. The remaining $10 billion goes to States through a temporary increase to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, known as FMAP, to help alleviate the short-term spike in Medicaid costs. The assistance would be distributed in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. So, again, the Finance Committee bill fully provides for the appropriate range of short-term stimulus measures. At the same time, for me--as I have stated--the net $350 billion cost of that package strikes a balance in keeping with the requirements imposed by my allegiance to the principles of fiscal responsibility. Because I came to this debate as one deeply rooted in the idea that perhaps the issue that best demonstrates our commitment to the generation of tomorrow is balancing the Federal budget. I have said time and again that there is not goal more critical to the economic future of our Nation--and that is not just my view. As Chairman Greenspan recently testified, ``(The deficit) does affect long-term interest rates, and it does have an impact on the economy.'' And he has also warned that, ``If . . . you get significant increases in deficits which induce a rise in long-term interest rates, you will be significantly undercutting the benefits'' of tax cuts. If you consider that the two sectors that are keeping the economy afloat right now--housing and automobiles--are also two of the most interest rate sensitive--just imagine where we would be in the future with high unemployment and high interest rates. And it is not just our future economy at stake--if that by itself isn't reason enough for fiscal prudence. I will recall the years we fought to arrive at balanced budgets and surpluses--and reaching that fiscal ``holy grail'' in the late 1990s was supposed to open a window of opportunity to address the domestic challenges of the coming decade--most significantly, strengthening Social Security and Medicare. Yes, even then, many of us were mindful that projections of future surpluses were just that--projections. That is why even as I supported the tax cuts in 2001--to provide, in Chairman Greenspan's words--an ``insurance policy'' against the effects of a recession, and to provide relief at a time when Americans were suffering under the highest tax burden since World War II--I proposed and I championed a trigger linking the level of spending and taxes to the level of surpluses actually realized. Of course, none of us could have foreseen that so many challenges would soon arrive, as the President has said, ``In a single season.'' September 11, the war on terrorism, and the necessity of disarming the Iraqi regime, the costs of bolstering our homeland security--all those shook an already fragile economy and sparked a return to deficits. In fact, CBO attributes fully 68 percent of the evaporated $5.6 trillion in surpluses to the recession and economic downturn. So here we are, with CBO having projected just this month that the deficit will be $300 billion--which is 22 percent higher than their projection from only 3 months ago and about 92 percent more than last year! Keep in mind that is without accounting for the approval of additional tax cuts or additional costs of pressing national priorities like the war in Iraq, homeland security costs, and passing a Medicare prescription drug benefit. And Citigroup economic forecasters have recently predicted that the 2003 deficit could be as high as $500 billion. Even optimist projections that assume higher-then-expected productivity growth anticipate substantial long-term deficits. And if growth remains just ``average'', the Nation will fact unsustainable budget deficits. Just this month, economists with Goldman Sachs expressed alarm about projections that Federal debate will grow from 33 to 49 percent of gross domestic product--a circumstance they say will undermine the economy, instead of spurring economic growth. And as we face a true cumulative deficit through 2013 projected to be nearly $4.5 trillion--not counting the $2.7 trillion in surpluses from Social Security that are currently being sued to mask the size of the deficit--we cannot tolerate the confluence of burgeoning deficits in perpetuity with the retirement of 77 million baby boomers beginning in 2013. That is why it was critical that--in establishing a policy on the taxation of dividends that could be built on as we assess the reaction of, and overall impact on, the financial and business sectors--the Finance Committee package pays for it with offsets. As Chairman Greenspan has said, cutting taxes on dividends will ``bolster the economy's long-term ability to grow''--but they should also be paid for. As reported by the Finance Committee, the bill includes real offsets, scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation, to fully compensate the approximately $80 billion cost of the provision. Moreover, in providing a capped exclusion of $500 for the taxation of dividends, with an additional exclusion for dividend amounts above $500 that goes from 10 percent to 20 percent over 10 years, the proposal would benefit all taxpayers who receive dividends, eliminating the tax entirely for 84.7 percent of all taxpayers. One of the arguments that proponents of eliminating the tax on dividends use to tout the proposal's benefits is that it will reduce the cost of capital for business over the long term. I agree. However, cutting taxes on dividends affects the financial markets as well. I am concerned that enacting a shorter term provision with a sunset would have negative consequences and potentially harm the economy. Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has commented on such a dividend plan, saying that, ``Since the eliminate of dividend taxes is only temporary, investors must evaluate the risk that dividend taxes will come back. If they do, then the cash flows to investors from owing stock will plummet, as will the value of shares. Under such circumstances, it is undeniable that government policy significantly increases the fundamental risk of stocks. It would be hard to imaging that this would be good for the stock market or the economy.'' Moreover, the benefits of cutting taxes on dividends cannot be viewed in isolation--the effect on the budget must be factored in the analysis. A key point is that, as the Federal budget goes further in the red, the associated mounting Federal debt will ``crowd out'' private capital in the marketplace--having a damaging impact on the economy. This will become more and more evident as we approach the end of this decade, with the pressures of the very large increase in baby boomer retirements. The bottom line is that, while deficits have supplanted surpluses due to war costs and the lingering effects of recession, we have a fundamental responsibility to ensure they are a temporary phenomenon-- not a perpetual cycle ``as far as the eye can see.'' The years of balanced budgets in the late 1990s should be no brief fiscal interlude, but rather the rule--so lowering taxes and containing deficits until we return to balanced budgets must not be mutually exclusive goals. Again, the tax bill that was reported out by the Finance Committee provides the right balance of tax relief that would stimulate both consumption and investment. The fiscally responsible growth policies contained in that package meet the dual, critical challenges of immediate, stimulative economic growth without further inflating budget deficits and returning to a perpetuity of red ink. And, as I have said, the dividend plan in the Finance bill is a long-term policy that takes an important, but incremental step to eliminating that ax on dividends. Regrettably, however, the temporary dividend proposals in the final bill, I believe, is not good long-term tax policy. If we assume a future Congress will extend this provision permanently, then the true cost would be over $300 billion--adding further to ballooning deficits well above the $350 billion net cost of the Finance Committee bill. On the other hand, if Congress does not extend the policy, it could have dire implications on the financial markets and companies. Finally, it must be noted the way in which this provision is paid for dilutes the important benefits of the section 179 expensing by sunsetting its expansion and cutting short marriage penalty relief proposed by the President. Therefore, for the reasons I have just detailed, I regret I am unable to support the final package, as amended. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to earlier be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the critical issue of State fiscal relief, which I believe adds tremendous value to this economic growth package. As I have discussed on numerous occasions, I believe that one of the best stimulants for the economy is providing assistance to our State and local governments, which is why I have fought for its inclusion in this package. Since December, when I first identified elements that I believed would stimulate the economy, I insisted on a State and local fiscal relief component. Today, I am pleased that the Senate is taking action through this floor amendment to further refine both the agreement and language that Senator Smith and I insisted must be included in the growth package as passed by the Senate Finance Committee. The growth package that the Senate Finance Committee reported establishes a $20 billion trust fund in S. 1054, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, to provide critical, flexible relief for both State and local governments. Also, I would like to thank Chairman Grassley for his willingness to work with me to identify appropriate offsets that ensured this proposal would not increase the net cost of the growth package, and also that the relief provided was not only flexible, but helped to meet the challenges faced by our communities. By securing support to include a $20 billion fiscal relief trust fund in this package, I was able to ensure that States and localities received the help they need in balancing their fiscal year 2004 budgets. Fiscal relief to State and local governments is vitally important to the health and strength of our economy, which is why I fought to ensure that half of the $20 billion would be modeled after my bill, S. 201, and would be flexible and divided between State and local governments with 40 percent going to localities and 60 percent to States. The floor amendment under consideration will provide $20 billion in State and local aid to be distributed in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Ten billion dollars in flexible funding will be distributed between state and local governments, with the remaining $10 billion provided to States through a temporary increase to the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, known as FMAP, to help alleviate the short-term spike in Medicaid costs. Because I thought it was important, we are providing $4 billion in flexible funding to local governments. While I know a number of my colleagues have questioned the necessity and importance of providing relief to local governments, I strongly believe that local governments have all the more pivotal and increasing responsibilities at a time such as this, when they face decreasing revenues. And a large percentage of this increased burden has come from unfunded federal mandates related to education, homeland security and election reform. By including $10 billion in flexible funding, distributed between state and local governments, we will ensure that essential government functions are performed. As we all know, our states and local communities are struggling. For the past 3 years, while the economy has been in a downturn, they have worked to meet the needs of residents, while 49 out of 50 States including Maine are also required to balance their budgets. In fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that since fiscal year 2001, the combined budget shortfall in states has totaled more than $200 billion. And the outlook for fiscal year 2004 is not proving different. In January, 36 states reported budget gaps totaling more than $68 billion for this year alone. In Maine, the Governor and Legislature were forced to trim $1.2 billion from their biennial budget in the wake of a $150 million shortfall in fiscal year 2003. Some argue State budget shortfalls result from overspending--yet a report issued by the National Governors Association shows that State spending from 1995 to 2001 increased 6.5 percent per year, a rate identical to spending from 1979 to 2003. Rather, it has been a drop in the stock market and the economy concurrent with increased costs associated with necessities like elementary and secondary education, programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, homeland security, and Medicaid--that has been the real culprit in burdening State and local budgets. The National Conference of State Legislatures has reported a substantial decline in projected revenue, including drops in income, sales and property tax receipts, and user fees. Indeed, data suggest that over three-fourths of the combined State budget shortfall is due to declines in State revenues. Again, unlike the Federal Government, States don't have the option of running deficits--and after 3 years, most practical belt-tightening measures have already taken effect. On the spending side, the NCSL estimates that unfunded mandates for the policy areas I just mentioned account for up to $82 billion in increased expenses. And States rightly argue that the vast majority of their increased cost burden comes from the growing unfunded Federal mandate for providing care to the elderly and disabled. Medicaid provides access to health care for almost 43 million of America's poor, elderly and disabled citizens and it alone is a program for which costs have grown by 11.1 percent from 1990 to 2000. Because of benefit shortfalls in the Medicare program--such as a prescription drug benefit--Medicaid ends up providing more vital services. Indeed, while seniors and the disabled represent only one- quarter of the Medicaid population, they account for almost three- fourths of all Medicaid expenses. For example, in fiscal year 2002 States provided $6.9 billion in prescription drug assistance to Medicare beneficiaries, and another $5.5 billion in copayment and premium assistance. That is why providing fiscal relief is so critical--because while there is no question this population needs to be served, there should also be no doubt we can't leave States to be the last line of defense in footing the bill. It is the same with issues like education--and that is why I also support providing flexible funding for States and localities to use as they see fit. In California 20,000 teachers are at risk of being laid off, in New York local districts are raising property taxes to offset the expected 4 percent cut in State education aid, and in Nebraska officials have told 1,000 students that their academic scholarships to state universities are being canceled and 431 college positions were eliminated. We are making such great advances in education--and we all know that education is the key to our future economic success. By providing fiscal relief, the Federal Government is continuing its commitment. Of course, the level of assistance that Congress is providing would not eliminate any State or local governments' total budget shortfall. But it will provide vitally important assistance and has the support of the largest State and local associations that represent our country's local elected representatives and leaders. Moreover, providing this State and local fiscal assistance within the tax package is entirely in keeping with our efforts to stimulate the economy. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, ``Analysts at Goldman Sachs figure State and local belt-tightening will shave as much as a half-point from the economy's growth so that overall fiscal policy will be no more than neutral next year.'' After all, dollars spent on education, health care and transportation have an economic value today and tomorrow. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that for every $1 billion invested in transportation, 47,500 new jobs are created. And let us not forget that State and local governments account for more than 15 million jobs nationwide. As we take steps to put more money into the hands of consumers, we must also make sure that those who are employed by a State or local government, either directly or through a government service contract, are able to stay employed. Providing short-term fiscal relief to help State and local governments balance their budgets is vitally important to the long-term viability of our economy. I thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.