Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, the Access to Cancer Therapies Act, which will extend Medicare coverage for all oral anticancer drugs. This legislation will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with cancer have access to the most advanced and effective drug therapies. I am pleased to be joined today by 19 of my colleagues in introducing this legislation. The strong bipartisan support the bill has received, even before introduction, indicates its importance to members of the Senate. As we know, presently Medicare does not include an outpatient prescription drug benefit. While this is a tremendous hardship for all beneficiaries, it is especially difficult for seniors who have cancer, which prevents them from receiving the most appropriate drug treatments as recommended by their physicians. Enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is certainly one of my top priorities. However, even if we are successful and enact a bill into law this year, the comprehensive benefit is not expected to be available until 2006 at the earliest. This bill, on the other hand, would allow Medicare to begin coverage of oral anticancer drugs within 90 days of enactment. These patients are facing life and death choices, I believe it is our responsibility to provide access to the most effective and appropriate drug therapies. Congress recognizes the importance of expanding coverage to vital cancer treatments and in 1993 created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs. Unfortunately, coverage under this law only is provided if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 95 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or as an oral form, which qualifies under the 1993 legislation. However, in the very near future as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapies will be oral drugs not covered. By enacting this legislation into law, we can ensure these new outpatient cancer treatment therapies will be available to Medicare beneficiaries. This is a developing trend. Today, there are about 40 oral anti- cancer drugs, but less than 10 are reimbursed by Medicare. In fact, one of the most common and effective drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, tamoxifen, is among those drugs that currently are not reimbursed by Medicare. As cancer therapy becomes more reliant on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies. Otherwise the intent of the very limited 1993 policy will become meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. Let me provide some very encouraging examples of oral anti-cancer drugs that illustrates the urgency of both this policy change and of enacting Medicare prescription drug legislation. Over the past two years, the FDA has approved a number of remarkable oral anticancer drugs that are producing outstanding results. Two such examples include Gleevec, which was approved in 2001 and IRESSA, which was approved on May 5. Gleevec is used to treat one type of leukemia and may also be effective against a rare but lethal stomach cancer. It is the first, let me repeat, first, cancer drug to specifically address a molecular target, which not only is in the cancer, but actually is the cause of the cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. More precisely, Gleevec eliminates a specific enzyme needed for the cancer to thrive. By contrast, most current cancer therapies act like a shotgun, killing both cancer and normal cells. IRESSA, another revolutionary oral anticancer drug that the FDA recently approved, treats advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, NSCLC. Considering lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, estimated to account for approximately 157,000 deaths in 2003, and NSCLC is the most common form of lung cancer, accounting for 80 percent of all lung cancer cases, it is imperative that Medicare beneficiaries have access to this new drug. For many who do not respond to chemotherapy treatments, IRESSA is the last line of defense. However, both of these cancer treatments are expensive. For instance, while Gleevec is a revolutionary and highly effective treatment, it is not a cure. It simply arrests the cancer and returns most lab tests to normal, requiring many patients to take the drug for life. Considering the extraordinary costs of these treatments--a month's supply of Gleevec costs upwards of $2,400 and IRESSA, the last treatment option for many NSCLC patients, costs approximately $1,900 per month of treatment, with the average treatment lasting seven months--Medicare coverage is a necessity. It is imperative that Medicare provide reliable access to these advanced medications to help beneficiaries with cancer. Biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, which will help improve outcomes and enhance patient quality of life. We must act now to ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The Act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, the Access to Cancer Therapies Act, which will extend Medicare coverage for all oral anticancer drugs. This legislation will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with cancer have access to the most advanced and effective drug therapies. I am pleased to be joined today by 19 of my colleagues in introducing this legislation. The strong bipartisan support the bill has received, even before introduction, indicates its importance to members of the Senate. As we know, presently Medicare does not include an outpatient prescription drug benefit. While this is a tremendous hardship for all beneficiaries, it is especially difficult for seniors who have cancer, which prevents them from receiving the most appropriate drug treatments as recommended by their physicians. Enacting a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit is certainly one of my top priorities. However, even if we are successful and enact a bill into law this year, the comprehensive benefit is not expected to be available until 2006 at the earliest. This bill, on the other hand, would allow Medicare to begin coverage of oral anticancer drugs within 90 days of enactment. These patients are facing life and death choices, I believe it is our responsibility to provide access to the most effective and appropriate drug therapies. Congress recognizes the importance of expanding coverage to vital cancer treatments and in 1993 created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs. Unfortunately, coverage under this law only is provided if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 95 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or as an oral form, which qualifies under the 1993 legislation. However, in the very near future as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapies will be oral drugs not covered. By enacting this legislation into law, we can ensure these new outpatient cancer treatment therapies will be available to Medicare beneficiaries. This is a developing trend. Today, there are about 40 oral anti- cancer drugs, but less than 10 are reimbursed by Medicare. In fact, one of the most common and effective drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, tamoxifen, is among those drugs that currently are not reimbursed by Medicare. As cancer therapy becomes more reliant on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies. Otherwise the intent of the very limited 1993 policy will become meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. Let me provide some very encouraging examples of oral anti-cancer drugs that illustrates the urgency of both this policy change and of enacting Medicare prescription drug legislation. Over the past two years, the FDA has approved a number of remarkable oral anticancer drugs that are producing outstanding results. Two such examples include Gleevec, which was approved in 2001 and IRESSA, which was approved on May 5. Gleevec is used to treat one type of leukemia and may also be effective against a rare but lethal stomach cancer. It is the first, let me repeat, first, cancer drug to specifically address a molecular target, which not only is in the cancer, but actually is the cause of the cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. More precisely, Gleevec eliminates a specific enzyme needed for the cancer to thrive. By contrast, most current cancer therapies act like a shotgun, killing both cancer and normal cells. IRESSA, another revolutionary oral anticancer drug that the FDA recently approved, treats advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, NSCLC. Considering lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, estimated to account for approximately 157,000 deaths in 2003, and NSCLC is the most common form of lung cancer, accounting for 80 percent of all lung cancer cases, it is imperative that Medicare beneficiaries have access to this new drug. For many who do not respond to chemotherapy treatments, IRESSA is the last line of defense. However, both of these cancer treatments are expensive. For instance, while Gleevec is a revolutionary and highly effective treatment, it is not a cure. It simply arrests the cancer and returns most lab tests to normal, requiring many patients to take the drug for life. Considering the extraordinary costs of these treatments--a month's supply of Gleevec costs upwards of $2,400 and IRESSA, the last treatment option for many NSCLC patients, costs approximately $1,900 per month of treatment, with the average treatment lasting seven months--Medicare coverage is a necessity. It is imperative that Medicare provide reliable access to these advanced medications to help beneficiaries with cancer. Biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, which will help improve outcomes and enhance patient quality of life. We must act now to ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The Act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation before the Senate that addresses what I feel is one of the most glaring loopholes in our homeland security net: that of the lax air cargo security infrastructure in our country. In 2001, with the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly. We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues. There is more work to be done. We must not lose focus, and we must maintain a continuity of commitment. If we are to fulfill our obligations to confront the aviation security challenges we face in the aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must- do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done,'' because we are only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system. I am a strong supporter of legislation that we are considering today, the Air Cargo Security Act, a bill intended to strengthen the air cargo security system in this country. According to the GAO, a full 22 percent of all the cargo shipped by air in this country in 2000 was shipped on passenger flights--and half of the hull of a typical passenger plane is filled with cargo. The Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that current air cargo controls be tightened, particularly the process for certifying freight forwarders and assessing their compliance with security requirements, and has warned that the existing screening system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand. Moreover, according to a Washington Post report last year, internal TSA documents warn of an increased risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen passengers and luggage. This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And time is not on our side. At many of the Senate Commerce Committee's aviation security hearings since 9/11, I have expressed concern about the significant outstanding air cargo security issues that we face. On January 23, I introduced legislation which would require TSA to put together a comprehensive air cargo security plan. And while TSA was developing their plan, my bill mandated that interim security measures be put into place, which include random cargo screening, greater scrutiny of shippers and a training regime for air cargo handlers. The bill before us today, the Air Cargo Security Act, incorporates many of the provisions of my bill. First of all, it would require TSA to establish a system to ensure the security of all cargo transported in the U.S. on both passenger aircraft and cargo aircraft, which must be finalized within 6 months of enactment. It is essential that TSA have a comprehensive plan in place as soon as possible, so that they can go after the most glaring security loopholes in the air cargo system. Secondly, the bill includes language I authored establishing a pilot program would be to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to test various techniques for screening cargo being loaded onto passenger planes including random physical screening. Today, virtually no cargo loaded onto airliners is screened, and it is vital that TSA settle soon on the best method of cargo screening with an eye towards deploying those methods in airports around the country. Also, in response to concerns that I had raised about security at foreign cargo facilities that ship to the U.S. by air, the legislation includes a provision requiring TSA to work with foreign countries to conduct regular inspections at facilities transporting air cargo to the U.S. Finally, the bill also includes a provision from my bill to develop a detailed training program for all persons that handle air cargo. This will ensure that the cargo is properly handled and safe- guarded from security breaches. The Air Cargo Security Act would also require TSA to establish an industrywide database of shippers who ship on passenger planes. I know that the TSA has already been working on this database. The bill also seeks to greatly increase oversight of indirect air carriers, ``freight forwarders,'' complete with a system of random TSA inspections. On last September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The landmark aviation security legislation was a major step in the right direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, women, and children. The bill before us works towards that goal, and therefore I am pleased to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise in support of this conference agreement on the fiscal year 2004 budget. Before I begin, I first want to commend the President for his leadership in initiating the debate on the necessity of stimulating our economy. From the beginning, I have shared his belief that we need to take steps in the short-term to strengthen our economic outlook, and the conference report before us provides us the opportunity to do just that. I thank our majority leader for his unflagging perseverance in seeing this budget through to a final passage of this conference report. He has shown incredible patience, understanding of the various issues and viewpoints, and he has been willing to work tirelessly to ensure a budget resolution around which we can coalesce. And in that same light, I want to commend my friend and colleague, Chairman Nickles, for his Herculean efforts in forging and producing this budget. As I have said in the past, as a former member of the committee I know what goes into this process and Chairman Nickles has tried to move Heaven and Earth to avoid the colossal failure we had last year under Democrat control when we failed to pass a budget for the first time. And I did not want to see a repeat performance; that would have been exactly the wrong message and completely counter to the interests of our Nation at a time when we are experiencing a troubled economy and when we are at war in Iraq. The bottom line is, the budget is critical, because it imposes structure and discipline and defines the priorities in Federal expenditures. That should be a fundamental responsibility of Congress, and it was a regrettable lapse of leadership last year that we failed to pass such a resolution. So I want to thank Chairman Nickles for his commitment to getting this done. I also want to thank Senator Grassley for his willingness to listen and to work toward a resolution of the concerns I have raised along with Senator Voinovich about the size of the tax cut package. It is because of their dedicated efforts--and let me say that Senator Voinovich has been steadfast in holding to his deeply held principles-- that we have reached the compromise I will now discuss. In fact, it would be entirely accurate to say that without Senator Grassley, we wouldn't have a budget. I will be voting today for the budget resolution conference report we have before us because the resolution--in concert with commitments I have secured from Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and from Majority Leader Frist--and I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the majority leader detailing that commitment be placed in the Record--will both ensure that we impose on Federal spending the discipline of a budget blueprint, and that tax cuts will be limited to $350 billion through the Senate Finance Committee and floor consideration of any growth package, including any final conference report. These are the two critical goals I have been working to achieve for the past 6 weeks of this budget debate--and I will ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I signed with Senators Voinovich, Breaux, and Baucus calling for a limited tax cut of $350 billion as part of reconciliation be printed in the record. I am pleased that, with the assurances I have been given from Senator Grassley and Senator Frist both men of their word--my goals have been fulfilled. One of the functions of our letter was to prompt a bipartisan budget resolution, and today that is what we have before us. Senator Grassley has said very eloquently that the people want us to govern--that is our obligation, and I think by coming to this compromise agreement we have fulfilled that responsibility when it comes to the budget. With the commitment we received, the budget provides funds for a strong, reasonably sized economic stimulus package that can create jobs and opportunities in the short term. At the same time, this agreement will assure that this tax package will be limited to $350 billion--an amount we believe is the right size to achieve this growth without ballooning budget deficits. Let it be remembered that Senator Daschle was proposing $112 billion and many in this Chamber wanted nothing at all, so $350 billion is a significant victory. I want to be clear about what this budget does. The budget agreement provides instructions for both the Senate and the House of Representatives to write growth packages not to exceed $550 billion, and the Senate is further instructed that no tax package under budget reconciliation rules may be more than $350 billion. To guarantee our position, I have secured language and commitments that neither the tax reconciliation bill reported by the Senate Finance Committee nor the tax bill voted out of the Senate may be more than $350 billion unless additional tax cuts are specifically offset or paid for. And, importantly, Senator Grassley, the Finance Committee chairman, who will also chair the conference committee on the tax reconciliation bill, has provided his personal commitment that Senate conferees will not support reporting of a bill with tax cuts greater than $350 billion, unless additional tax cuts are specifically offset or paid for. Once again, just as I trusted the word of the majority leader as we agreed to address extraneous special interest provisions in homeland security legislation last fall, so I trust the good word of Chairman Grassley and Majority Leader Frist. Moreover, this agreement provides written confirmation that the Senate will at no point consider the House-passed legislation, except when it is necessary to be sent to conference, and provides the protections we have sought to ensure a responsibly sized tax package. I feel strongly about my commitment to a lower tax cut, and this agreement reflects the principles on which I have held firm throughout consideration of the budget. As I said, from the start I have shared the President's belief that economic stimulus is demanded by the wavering conditions of our economy, which was already on shaky ground before the horrific attacks of September 11. We've lost 2.3 million jobs since the recession began in March 2001--nearly half a million in the past 2 months alone. And comparing today's employment situation with the one prevailing after the 1990-1991 recession--which was followed by a ``jobless recovery''-- Charles McMillion, chief economist of MGB Information Services in Washington, recently told the Financial Times, ``The current jobless recovery has now lasted longer and is far worse'' than the aftermath of the 90-91 downturn. Just this week, the Business Roundtable released results of a survey of CEOs on the economy that revealed a more pessimistic outlook for the economy than just 6 months ago. For example, CEOs were very concerned about employment growth and weak consumer demand. According to the survey, CEOs, on average, expect GDP growth to be only around 2.2 percent over the next 6 months. We can't afford another ``jobless recovery'' like we had just over a decade ago--or, worse, a ``double-dip'' recession. At the same time, with the demands of our action in Iraq, with the need to fund pressing domestic issues such as the necessity for prescription drug coverage for seniors and for strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and with the deficits we have already seen in a dramatic turnabout from 4 years of surpluses--we also cannot allow ourselves to be drawn into another downward spiral of perpetual deficits. This is a matter of principle, and one upon which I have stood since I first came to Congress--that a cycle of deficits must not be allowed to continue. If we act wisely, I believe we can provide significant tax relief to help taxpayers and business to get the economy moving, while also achieving fiscal discipline. This budget is a responsible, well-balanced approach to stimulate our economy in the short term, and to protect our economy from the effects of unnecessary deficits in the long term. As we continue to confront global uncertainties that have cast a shadow over a domestic economy already on shaky ground even before September 11, I believe an immediate growth package is absolutely essential to help create both consumer demand and new jobs. As we move to the next phase in this process, I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and my colleagues on the Finance Committee to craft such a plan. We must work to maintain a carefully calibrated plan that will produce short-term benefits for our economy, without jeopardizing long- term fiscal responsibility and economic growth. By capping the size at $350 billion, I believe we can do so without risking the types of deficits that could come from deficit-financing of long-term tax cuts. At the same time, we will also pass a budget, which I believe is critical because it imposes structure and discipline on Congress, and defines the priorities in Federal expenditures. This is a fundamental responsibility of the Congress, and I am pleased we will be successful in passing a budget this year. So I believe we should have a growth package in this budget. At the same time, given these unprecedented times and the confluence of circumstances by which they are defined--the economic uncertainties, the war in Iraq, new projections of higher budget deficits, the domestic fiscal challenges that lurk on the horizon with Social Security and Medicare, our responsibility to carefully evaluate the impact of any tax reductions and spending increases in this budget is that much greater. That is the context in which we must shape a budget--indeed our projected deficits are at historic levels. What is required in this budget resolution is a careful calibration if we are to produce short- term benefit for our economy without jeopardizing long-term fiscal responsibility and economic growth. And let there be no mistake, just as the need for short-term economic stimulus is compelling, so, too, is the need to return to balanced budgets and indeed surpluses as soon as possible. What it all comes back to is setting priorities. That is what we talked about all those years we were fighting for balanced budgets. We are here to draw lines and make distinctions so as not to exacerbate our economic situation and thereby lead to even greater problems down the road. A look at the administration's budget shows substantial out-year deficits, even if productivity growth turns out to be higher than expected. If growth is just ``average'' we still face unsustainable budget deficits. This year, given the slow economy and the war costs, our deficits could be near 4 percent of GNP. Recently, the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees reported that between 2010 and 2030, the costs of these programs will increase rapidly, with annual costs exceeding dedicated tax revenues beginning a dozen years before this `baby boom' wave is over. And the trustees estimate Medicare will become insolvent 4 years earlier than predicted just last year. Importantly, these estimates do not include the addition of a necessary prescription drug benefit. The bottom line is, we cannot diminish our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We were looking to the window of opportunity presented by a return to surpluses to prepare for these future challenges. But as we have seen over the past 18 months, projections of surpluses or deficits can change dramatically, and that opportunity has evaporated. Given the uncertainties we are facing today, given the challenges we face tomorrow--we must exercise caution now so that we do not exacerbate long-term deficits in the years to come, and threaten our ability to address America's long-term priorities in the future. Once again, the President was right to offer a growth plan. But, we cannot ignore the impact of all of the challenges we face--the cost of war, higher defense spending, the retirement of baby boomers, higher health care spending, and homeland security. This agreement gives us the chance to unite behind a consensus figure. A figure that is ``right-sized'', a figure that strikes the right balance and one that will allow us to stimulate the economy in the short-term. It represents the most effective and responsible way to stimulate the economy, while advancing a growth package that can achieve the strongest bipartisan support. If we are to restore balance to the Federal budget, we must exercise fiscal discipline. This budget provides an important step in that direction and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this conference agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the letters that I referred to be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities. Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the resources to adequately perform that planning. I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use that equipment. As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability must therefore have flexible rules for implementation. For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received $246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If training or exercise was the need, they could stress that. While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local communities, States were required to track performance measures that showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational infrastructure to plan and execute programs. States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support basic emergency management activities, such as incident command training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their capability to react to a terrorist incident. By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002 Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been better served by programs brought to them by the state. In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of facilities was in place. The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection, decontamination and communications could be procured. Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training. While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but, again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa. In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then training, then exercise. If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to free up employee time to take needed training or participate in exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to respond to a terrorist incident. Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response capability. In some areas we could build that capability around existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build capability from the ground up. For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level, as they are facing additional security requirements around the city. This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and no Federal grant currently available will reimburse training costs to include overtime. In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people. These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time. In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more rigid. The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting our residents' health. While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters, but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties. Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for collaboration and compatibility. No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the community response system and if they are not prepared and protected, there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break down completely. One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals. The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently underfunded. According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material ``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train 25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination line, the nursing costs are just the beginning. The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating margins in 2002. Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis. These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan--whose words, thoughts, and deeds will forever reverberate throughout this Chamber and, indeed, throughout our country. I also extend my most heartfelt sympathies to his wife Liz and Senator Moynihan's entire family. We share in their profound sense of loss. I was privileged to serve with Senator Moynihan from 1995, when I first arrived in the Senate, to his retirement in 2001. He was one of those truly legendary figures on the political landscape, but it was a reputation built not on procedural savvy or the brokering of power, but rather on the crafting and expression of ideas. It was the process of transforming intellectual thought into action--and not simply the process of politics--that will always remain the hallmark of Senator Moynihan's entire, exceptional life. His was a life not wanting for opportunities to contribute. The curriculum vitae of Daniel Patrick Moynihan reads more as a biography of a man driven to synthesize the world of academics with the realm of politics in order to make a difference--and he did to wherever he served, whether at the Labor Department or at Harvard or as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations or in the Senate. Perhaps most impressive of all, no man or woman is requested to serve four different Presidents--of both parties, no less--unless they possess and exhibit only the most extraordinary qualities that engender the kind of trust a President must have in an advisor and confidant. It could certainly never be said that Senator Moynihan equivocated on an opinion for fear of controversy. If he spoke--or wrote, which he did often and well--you always knew it was a viewpoint born of a careful study of history and a keen eye on contemporary society. He believed that society could be influenced to change itself for the better through its leaders--indeed, that those in a position to leave such a mark are obliged to do so. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Democrat, but he was less about party and more about policies that would build a better country for all Americans--regardless of whatever political stamp such initiatives might bear. As Jonathan Alter so pointedly observed in his column in tribute to Senator Moynihan, he ``consistently frustrated the foolishly consistent.'' In my own experience, I was privileged to work with him across the party aisle on a number of issues important to our region of the country, and also to men and women across the Nation. We worked together to try to strengthen and improve welfare reform in 1996, to enhance treatment under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for uninsured women, to bolster our Nation's transportation system, and to encourage private sector investment in bringing more advance Internet access to the people of rural America. We also joined forces on numerous occasions to ensure that the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program was funded at levels sufficient to help those families in the cold and in need. And, together, we fought to ensure the Northeast States that were devastated by the historic ice storm of 1998 received the Federal assistance they required, and deserved. Throughout his tenure, regardless of whether one agreed or disagreed on an individual issue, it could always be said that Senator Moynihan was a thoughtful, gentlemanly force for good. He had an influence on countless social policy initiatives over his tenure, offered his views for strengthening and protecting Social Security, and fought tirelessly on behalf of causes a diverse as public transportation and teaching hospitals. Above all, he was never superficial, and he had the ability to see-- and foresee--what others could not. Indeed, how fitting that a man of ideas would serve a nation founded on ideas. Senator Moynihan stood at the intersection of intellect, insight, and integrity, and in so doing left a lasting and positive impact on the people of the State of New York and the United States of America. George Bernard Shaw said that ``Life is no brief candle to me--it is like a splendid torch which I have hold of for the moment and I want it to burn as brightly as possible before handing it over to the next generation.'' That is the credo by which Daniel Patrick Moynihan lived his life, and we are the beneficiaries of his extraordinary spirit.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities. Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the resources to adequately perform that planning. I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use that equipment. As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability must therefore have flexible rules for implementation. For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received $246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If training or exercise was the need, they could stress that. While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local communities, States were required to track performance measures that showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational infrastructure to plan and execute programs. States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support basic emergency management activities, such as incident command training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their capability to react to a terrorist incident. By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002 Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been better served by programs brought to them by the state. In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of facilities was in place. The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection, decontamination and communications could be procured. Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training. While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but, again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa. In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then training, then exercise. If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to free up employee time to take needed training or participate in exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to respond to a terrorist incident. Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response capability. In some areas we could build that capability around existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build capability from the ground up. For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level, as they are facing additional security requirements around the city. This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and no Federal grant currently available will reimburse training costs to include overtime. In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people. These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time. In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more rigid. The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting our residents' health. While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters, but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties. Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for collaboration and compatibility. No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the community response system and if they are not prepared and protected, there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break down completely. One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals. The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently underfunded. According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material ``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train 25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination line, the nursing costs are just the beginning. The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating margins in 2002. Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis. These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry. In brief, my bill would a correct a serious disparity in payment for treatment of mental disorders under Medicare law. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent copayment for outpatient services, including doctor's visits and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But for treatment of mental disorders, Medicare law requires patients pay a 50-percent copayment. Under my bill, this copayment will be reduced over a six year period, starting in 2004, from the current 50 percent to 20 percent. This means that in 2010, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment required of Medicare patients that receive treatment for any other illness. Let's look at this issue in another way. If a Medicare patient has an office visit for treatment for cancer or heart disease, the patient is responsible for 20 percent of the doctor's fee. But if a Medicare patient has an office visit with a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional for treatment for depression, schizophrenia, or any other condition diagnosed as a mental illness, the copayment for the outpatient visit for treatment of the mental illness is 50 percent. What sense does this make? Indeed, my bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction between physical and mental disorders, and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all health conditions. Perhaps this disparity would matter less if mental disorders were not so prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. The importance of access to treatment for mental disorders is emphasized in a landmark report on mental health released by the Surgeon General in 1999. The Surgeon General reported mental illness was second only to cardiovascular diseases in years of healthy life lost to either premature death or disability. And the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread with a substantial proportion of the population 55 and older--almost 20 percent of this age group--experiencing specific mental disorders that are not part of ``normal'' aging. Further, older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases with age. In fact, in the State of Maine, the suicide rate for seniors is three times as high as the rate for adolescents. Untreated depression among the elderly substantially increases the risk of death by suicide. There is another sad irony. While Medicare often is viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, Medicare also provides health insurance coverage for people with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, at the same time, Medicare pays less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than if they had a non-mental disability. But there also is very good news that there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illnesses. With proper treatment, the majority of people with a mental illness can lead productive lives. By removing financial barriers that inhibit access to treatment services, we will be able to eliminate stigmas and overcome a lack of understanding of mental disorders. I urge my colleagues to join with me to bring Medicare payment policy for mental disorders into the 21st century.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 whose purpose is to increase the amount of venture capital available to small businesses. As the chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased that my good friend and former chairman of the Committee, Senator Bond, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, have agreed to be the principal cosponsors of this important bill. During the past 2 years, there has been a significant contraction of the private equity market. During this same period, the Small Business Administration's Small Business Investment Company program has taken on a significant role in providing venture capital to small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million. Small Business Investment Companies are government-licensed, government-regulated, privately managed venture capital firms created to invest only in original issue debt or equity securities of U.S. small businesses that meet size standards set by law. In the current economic environment, the SBIC program represents an increasingly important source of capital for small enterprises. While debenture SBICs qualify for SBA-guaranteed borrowed capital, the Government guarantee forces a number of potential investors, namely pension funds and university endowment funds, to avoid investing in SBICs because they would be subject to tax liability for unrelated business taxable income. More often than not, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create UBTI. As a result an estimated 60 percent of the private capital potentially available to these SBICs is effectively off limits. The Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 would correct this problem by excluding government-guaranteed capital of debenture SBICs from debt for purposes of the UBTI rules. This change would permit tax-exempt organizations to invest in SBICs without the burdens of UBTI recordkeeping or tax liability. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC program to assist small business owners in obtaining investment capital. More than 40 years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. Although investment capital is readily available to large businesses from traditional Wall Street investment firms, small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million have to look elsewhere. SBICs are frequently the only sources of investment capital for growing small businesses. Often we are reminded that the SBIC program has helped some of our Nation's best known companies. It has provided a financial boost at critical points in the early growth period for many companies that are familiar to all of us. For example, when Federal Express needed help from reluctant credit markets, it received a needed infusion of capital from two SBA-licensed SBICs at a critical juncture in its development stage. The SBIC program also helped other well-known companies, when they were not so well known, such as Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, and Callaway Golf. What is not well known is the extraordinary help the SBIC program provides to main street America small businesses. These are companies we know from hometowns all over the United States. Main street companies provide both stability and growth in our local business communities. In 1991, the SBIC program was experiencing major losses, and the future of the program was in doubt. Consequently, in 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with the Small Business Administration to correct deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC program is expanding rapidly in an effort to meet the growing demands of small business owners for debt and equity investment capital. And it is important to focus on the significant role that is played by the SBIC program in support of growing small businesses. When Fortune Small Business compiled its list of 100 fastest growing small companies in 2000, six of the top 12 businesses on the list received SBIC financing during their critical growth year. The Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 is important for one simple reason: once enacted it paves the way for more investment capital to be available for more small businesses that are seeking to grow and hire new employees. According to the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, a conservative estimate of the effect of this bill would be to increase investments in debenture SBICs by $200 million per year from tax-exempt investors. Together with SBA-guaranteed leverage, that will mean as much as $500 million per year in new capital assets for debenture SBICs to invest in U.S. small businesses. According to the SBA, one job is created for every $36,000 invested in a small company. At that rate, this bill could be responsible for the creation or support of as many as 16,600 jobs--within companies receiving investments directly as well as within those firms benefitting indirectly through increased sales of goods and services to the former companies. In short, this bill is a jobs creator. And the cost? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in the last Congress that this bill would result in tax revenue loss of only $1 million per year for the next 10 years. Mr. President, the cost is low and the potential for economic gain is great. Passage of the bill will make the Government's existing SBIC program more effective in providing growth capital for America's small business entrepreneurs. And most importantly, it will provide sorely needed capital for the sector of our economy that provides a majority of the net new jobs in this country--small businesses. That is a real stimulus that would cause new investments to be made and the creation of critically needed new jobs. Our economy is primed for this kind of support, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 whose purpose is to increase the amount of venture capital available to small businesses. As the chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased that my good friend and former chairman of the Committee, Senator Bond, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, have agreed to be the principal cosponsors of this important bill. During the past 2 years, there has been a significant contraction of the private equity market. During this same period, the Small Business Administration's Small Business Investment Company program has taken on a significant role in providing venture capital to small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million. Small Business Investment Companies are government-licensed, government-regulated, privately managed venture capital firms created to invest only in original issue debt or equity securities of U.S. small businesses that meet size standards set by law. In the current economic environment, the SBIC program represents an increasingly important source of capital for small enterprises. While debenture SBICs qualify for SBA-guaranteed borrowed capital, the Government guarantee forces a number of potential investors, namely pension funds and university endowment funds, to avoid investing in SBICs because they would be subject to tax liability for unrelated business taxable income. More often than not, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create UBTI. As a result an estimated 60 percent of the private capital potentially available to these SBICs is effectively off limits. The Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 would correct this problem by excluding government-guaranteed capital of debenture SBICs from debt for purposes of the UBTI rules. This change would permit tax-exempt organizations to invest in SBICs without the burdens of UBTI recordkeeping or tax liability. In 1958, Congress created the SBIC program to assist small business owners in obtaining investment capital. More than 40 years later, small businesses continue to experience difficulty in obtaining investment capital from banks and traditional investment sources. Although investment capital is readily available to large businesses from traditional Wall Street investment firms, small businesses seeking investments in the range of $500,000 to $3 million have to look elsewhere. SBICs are frequently the only sources of investment capital for growing small businesses. Often we are reminded that the SBIC program has helped some of our Nation's best known companies. It has provided a financial boost at critical points in the early growth period for many companies that are familiar to all of us. For example, when Federal Express needed help from reluctant credit markets, it received a needed infusion of capital from two SBA-licensed SBICs at a critical juncture in its development stage. The SBIC program also helped other well-known companies, when they were not so well known, such as Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, and Callaway Golf. What is not well known is the extraordinary help the SBIC program provides to main street America small businesses. These are companies we know from hometowns all over the United States. Main street companies provide both stability and growth in our local business communities. In 1991, the SBIC program was experiencing major losses, and the future of the program was in doubt. Consequently, in 1992 and 1996, the Committee on Small Business worked closely with the Small Business Administration to correct deficiencies in the law in order to ensure the future of the program. Today, the SBIC program is expanding rapidly in an effort to meet the growing demands of small business owners for debt and equity investment capital. And it is important to focus on the significant role that is played by the SBIC program in support of growing small businesses. When Fortune Small Business compiled its list of 100 fastest growing small companies in 2000, six of the top 12 businesses on the list received SBIC financing during their critical growth year. The Small Business Investment Company Capital Access Act of 2003 is important for one simple reason: once enacted it paves the way for more investment capital to be available for more small businesses that are seeking to grow and hire new employees. According to the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, a conservative estimate of the effect of this bill would be to increase investments in debenture SBICs by $200 million per year from tax-exempt investors. Together with SBA-guaranteed leverage, that will mean as much as $500 million per year in new capital assets for debenture SBICs to invest in U.S. small businesses. According to the SBA, one job is created for every $36,000 invested in a small company. At that rate, this bill could be responsible for the creation or support of as many as 16,600 jobs--within companies receiving investments directly as well as within those firms benefitting indirectly through increased sales of goods and services to the former companies. In short, this bill is a jobs creator. And the cost? The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in the last Congress that this bill would result in tax revenue loss of only $1 million per year for the next 10 years. Mr. President, the cost is low and the potential for economic gain is great. Passage of the bill will make the Government's existing SBIC program more effective in providing growth capital for America's small business entrepreneurs. And most importantly, it will provide sorely needed capital for the sector of our economy that provides a majority of the net new jobs in this country--small businesses. That is a real stimulus that would cause new investments to be made and the creation of critically needed new jobs. Our economy is primed for this kind of support, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry. In brief, my bill would a correct a serious disparity in payment for treatment of mental disorders under Medicare law. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent copayment for outpatient services, including doctor's visits and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But for treatment of mental disorders, Medicare law requires patients pay a 50-percent copayment. Under my bill, this copayment will be reduced over a six year period, starting in 2004, from the current 50 percent to 20 percent. This means that in 2010, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment required of Medicare patients that receive treatment for any other illness. Let's look at this issue in another way. If a Medicare patient has an office visit for treatment for cancer or heart disease, the patient is responsible for 20 percent of the doctor's fee. But if a Medicare patient has an office visit with a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional for treatment for depression, schizophrenia, or any other condition diagnosed as a mental illness, the copayment for the outpatient visit for treatment of the mental illness is 50 percent. What sense does this make? Indeed, my bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction between physical and mental disorders, and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all health conditions. Perhaps this disparity would matter less if mental disorders were not so prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. The importance of access to treatment for mental disorders is emphasized in a landmark report on mental health released by the Surgeon General in 1999. The Surgeon General reported mental illness was second only to cardiovascular diseases in years of healthy life lost to either premature death or disability. And the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread with a substantial proportion of the population 55 and older--almost 20 percent of this age group--experiencing specific mental disorders that are not part of ``normal'' aging. Further, older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases with age. In fact, in the State of Maine, the suicide rate for seniors is three times as high as the rate for adolescents. Untreated depression among the elderly substantially increases the risk of death by suicide. There is another sad irony. While Medicare often is viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, Medicare also provides health insurance coverage for people with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, at the same time, Medicare pays less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than if they had a non-mental disability. But there also is very good news that there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illnesses. With proper treatment, the majority of people with a mental illness can lead productive lives. By removing financial barriers that inhibit access to treatment services, we will be able to eliminate stigmas and overcome a lack of understanding of mental disorders. I urge my colleagues to join with me to bring Medicare payment policy for mental disorders into the 21st century.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy is, unfortunately, one of our government's best kept secrets, and in many cases, the best hope for small businesses faced with over burdensome Federal regulations. The Office of Advocacy serves two critical roles: 1. it represents small business' interests before the Federal government in regulatory matters--taking advantage of its statutorily granted independence to argue against regulatory actions that impose too great a burden on small businesses to our economy and the forces that have an effect on them. This bill is designed to build on the success achieved by the Office of Advocacy over the past 26 years and to strengthen that foundation by making the Office of Advocacy a stronger, more effective advocate for all small businesses throughout the United States. This bill was approved unanimously by the Senate during the 106th and 107th Congresses. However, regrettably, the House failed to act in both cases. The Office of Advocacy, headed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, is a unique office with the Federal government. It is part of the SBA, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. At the same time, the Office is also intended to be the independent voice for small business within the Federal Government. It is supposed to develop proposals for changing government policies to help small businesses, and it is supposed to represent the views and interests of small businesses before other Federal agencies in rulemaking activities. These roles can sometimes come into conflict. The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' resolves such conflicts in favor of the small businesses that rely on the Chief Counsel and the Office of Advocacy to be a fully independent advocate within the Executive Branch acting on their behalf. The bill would establish a clear mandate that the Office of Advocacy must fight on behalf of small businesses, regardless of the position taken on critical issues by the President and his or her Administration. The Office of Advocacy, under the direction of the Chief Counsel, as envisioned by the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'', would be a wide-ranging advocate, free to take positions contrary to the Administration's policies and to advocate change in government programs and attitudes as they affect small businesses. During its consideration of the bill in 1999, the Committee on Small Business adopted unanimously an amendment to require the Chief Counsel to be appointed ``from civilian life.'' This qualification is intended to emphasize that the person nominated to serve in this important role should have a strong small business background. In 1976, Congress established the Office of Advocacy in the SBA to be the eyes, ears and voice for small business within the Federal government. Since then, the Office of Advocacy has become the ``independent'' voice for small business. Unfortunately, in certain cases, the Office has not been as independent as necessary to do the job for small business. For example, funding for the Office of Advocacy currently comes from the Salaries and Expense Account of the SBA's budget. Staffing is allocated by the SBA Administrator to the Office of Advocacy from the overall staff allocation for the Agency. In 1990, there were 70 full- time employees working on behalf of small businesses in the Office of Advocacy. The current allocation of staff is 49, and fewer are actually on-board as the result of the long-standing hiring freeze at the SBA. The independence of the Office is diminished when the Office of Advocacy staff is reduced to allow for increased staffing for new programs and additional initiatives in other areas of SBA, at the discretion of the Administrator. To address this problem, the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' builds a firewall to prevent political intrusion into the management of day-to-day operations of the Office of Advocacy similar to the one that protects Inspectors General. The bill would require the Federal budget to include a separate account for the Office of Advocacy drawn directly from General Fund of the Treasury. No longer would its funds come from the general operating account of the SBA. This will free the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from having to seek approval from the SBA Administrator to hire staff for the Office of Advocacy. Additionally, the bill provides that any funds appropriated will remain available without fiscal year limitation until expended. This will give the Chief Counsel the flexibility to use these funds as necessary instead of being forced to spend them, perhaps prematurely, because of the coming end of a fiscal year. The bill would leave unchanged current law that allows the Chief Counsel to hire individuals critical to the mission of the Office of advocacy without going through the normal competitive procedures directed by Federal law and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. This long-standing special hiring authority, which is limited only to employees within the Office of Advocacy, is beneficial because it allows the Chief Counsel to hire quickly those persons who can best assist the Office in responding to changing issues and problems confronting small businesses. As the New Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have heard repeatedly about the importance of the Office of Advocacy and the vital role it plays for small enterprises and the self employed across the nation. With these comments in mind, I am committed to ensuring the complete independence of the Office of Advocacy in all matters, at all times, for the continued benefit of all small businesses. However, so long as any administration controls the budget allocated to the Office of Advocacy, the independence of the Office may be in jeopardy. We must correct this situation, and the sooner we do it, the better it will be for the small business community. In addition to resolving the critical funding issues, the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' would direct the Chief Counsel to submit an annual report on Federal agency compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, to the President, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, House Committee on Small Business, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary. The RFA is a very important weapon in the war against the over- regulation of small businesses. It requires agencies to analyze their regulations to determine their impact on small businesses before they are proposed and to explore alternatives to reduce the regulatory burden. In August, 2002, President Bush issued Executive Order 13272, which requires Federal agencies to establish plans detailing how they will handle their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and directs the Office of Advocacy to work with the agencies in developing these plans. In addition, the Executive Order directs the agencies to respond to comments from the Office of Advocacy regarding the agencies' analyses. Thus, there is even more reason today to have the Chief Counsel report to the President and Congress on how Federal agencies are complying with the Regulatory Flexibility Act than there was when this bill was introduced in previous Congresses. The ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act of 2003'' is a sound bill. It is the product of a great deal of thoughtful, objective review and consideration by me; the former Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Bond; staff of the Committee; representatives of the small business community; former Chief Counsels for Advocacy and many others. In short, this bill has been thoroughly vetted in my Committee and has been approved unanimously by the Senate in 1999 and 2001. It is time we see this bill enacted into law, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation for America's small businesses and entrepreneurs. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate again, and hope that the third time will lead to the President's desk. 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 once again introduce legislation to simplify and restore fairness to the tax accounting rules under which our six major U.S. naval shipyards determine their tax liability on the naval ship contracts they are awarded by the Navy. Quite simply, this legislation would permit naval shipyards to use a method of accounting under which shipbuilders would pay income taxes upon delivery of a ship rather than during construction. Under current law, profits must be estimated during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process and taxes must be paid on those estimated profits, a process known as the ``Percent of Completion Method'' of accounting. The major shortcoming of this method is that shipbuilders must report progress payments as ``revenue'' rather than as a source of financing, which had been recognized and permitted for the 64 years between 1918 and 1982. Additionally, it creates a ``legal fiction'' of an ``interim profit,'' when in reality a profit or loss is not reasonably known until after a ship is completed. This places a financial burden on shipbuilders during the critical construction phase; reduces the resources available to invest in facilities and processes to reduce construction costs; places a burden on the cash flow management of the shipbuilder; and weakens the financial health of the defense shipbuilding industrial base. The legislation being proposed would simply allow naval shipbuilders and their team members to use a modified ``Completed Contract Method'' of accounting, under which the shipbuilder would pay taxes when the ship is actually delivered to the Navy. In other words, the delivery of each ship would be treated as the completion of the contract for ``Completed Contract'' purposes, regardless of how many ships are built under a contract. Prior to 1982, Federal law permitted shipbuilders to use this method but the law was changed due to abuses by Federal contractors in another sector, having absolutely nothing to do with shipbuilding. Moreover, non-government shipbuilding contracts are already allowed to use this method of accounting, and this legislation contains provisions designed to prevent the types of abuses witnessed in the past. Specifically, the bill would restrict shipyards from deferring tax payments for a period beyond the time it takes to build a single ship. This bill would not reduce the amount of taxes ultimately paid by the shipbuilder. It simply would defer payment until the profit is actually known upon delivery of the ship. I believe that this is the most fair and most sensible accounting method. It is the method that naval shipbuilders employed in the past. It is the method which commercial builders are permitted to use to this day. This legislation has the strong support of the major shipyards that build for the Navy. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce legislation to simplify and restore fairness to the tax accounting rules under which our six major U.S. naval shipyards determine their tax liability on the naval ship contracts they are awarded by the Navy. Quite simply, this legislation would permit naval shipyards to use a method of accounting under which shipbuilders would pay income taxes upon delivery of a ship rather than during construction. Under current law, profits must be estimated during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process and taxes must be paid on those estimated profits, a process known as the ``Percent of Completion Method'' of accounting. The major shortcoming of this method is that shipbuilders must report progress payments as ``revenue'' rather than as a source of financing, which had been recognized and permitted for the 64 years between 1918 and 1982. Additionally, it creates a ``legal fiction'' of an ``interim profit,'' when in reality a profit or loss is not reasonably known until after a ship is completed. This places a financial burden on shipbuilders during the critical construction phase; reduces the resources available to invest in facilities and processes to reduce construction costs; places a burden on the cash flow management of the shipbuilder; and weakens the financial health of the defense shipbuilding industrial base. The legislation being proposed would simply allow naval shipbuilders and their team members to use a modified ``Completed Contract Method'' of accounting, under which the shipbuilder would pay taxes when the ship is actually delivered to the Navy. In other words, the delivery of each ship would be treated as the completion of the contract for ``Completed Contract'' purposes, regardless of how many ships are built under a contract. Prior to 1982, Federal law permitted shipbuilders to use this method but the law was changed due to abuses by Federal contractors in another sector, having absolutely nothing to do with shipbuilding. Moreover, non-government shipbuilding contracts are already allowed to use this method of accounting, and this legislation contains provisions designed to prevent the types of abuses witnessed in the past. Specifically, the bill would restrict shipyards from deferring tax payments for a period beyond the time it takes to build a single ship. This bill would not reduce the amount of taxes ultimately paid by the shipbuilder. It simply would defer payment until the profit is actually known upon delivery of the ship. I believe that this is the most fair and most sensible accounting method. It is the method that naval shipbuilders employed in the past. It is the method which commercial builders are permitted to use to this day. This legislation has the strong support of the major shipyards that build for the Navy. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to introduce a bill that will promote the expanded use of an environmentally sound and efficient energy technology--fuel cell power. The United States has had a long, inseparable relationship with energy. The Americans of the 19th century would not have populated the West as they did without the railroad and its steam engines. New York's Pearl Street Station, designed by Thomas Edison in 1882, demonstrated the immense possibilities of large-scale electricity generation that would revolutionize our Nation and the world. And, of course, the 20th century is posted with landmark American innovations an inventions in oil use and production, nuclear power, and solar energy. As we begin our journey into the 21st century, we must begin a new chapter for energy use through fuel cell power. Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream, as every manned U.S. space mission has relied upon fuel cells for electricity and drinking water. From a New York City police station to a postal facility in Alaska to hospitals, schools, banks, military installations and manufacturing facilities around the world, fuel cell units are efficiently generating dependable power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for upwards of 2 years with only routine maintenance. Fuel cell technology offers a clean, secure, efficient, and dependable source of energy that should be part of our national energy strategy. Not only do fuel cells deliver the high quality, reliable power that is considered an absolute necessity for many portions of our society, they reduce grid demand while improving grid flexibility. Fuel cells are an ideal energy source to address the Nation's pressing energy needs. Using electro-chemical reaction to convert energy from hydrogen-rich fuel cell sources into electricity, fuel cells reduce the need for fossil fuel consumption. And, since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce virtually no air pollution and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the major greenhouse gas thought to be responsible for climate change variability. In fact, a 200 kilowatt fuel power plant produces less than one ounce of pollutants for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity it yields. In comparison, the average fossil fuel plans produces nearly 25 pounds of pollutants to generate the same 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. That is 400 times the amount of a fuel cell power plant. The current problem is that it is difficult for the consumer to take advantage of fuel cells because, as with any new technology, the introductory price is high. To create the market incentives necessary to speed the commercialization of this technology, the Lieberman-Snow legislation provides a property owner a five year, $1,000 per kilowatt stationary fuel cell tax credit, including labor and installation costs, for business and non business power plants--stationary and portable--that have an electrical generation efficiency greater than 30 percent and generate at least 0.5 kilowatts of electricity using an electrochemical process. To put this electrical generation in perspective, a home uses approximately 1 to 2 kilowatts of power, on average. By lowering the initial price for consumers, market introduction and production volume of fuel cells will be accelerated with the end result being a significant reduction in manufacturing costs. The decrease in price would enable even more consumers to use one of the cleanest, most reliable and most efficient means to generate electricity. This tailored fuel cell tax credit for a stationary and portable fuel cells is designed to benefit the widest range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers with a meaningful incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial use. As summer approaches, power shortages and interruptions can be expected throughout the country. We must increase our investment and commitment to non-traditional energy sources such as fuel cells. This reliable, combustion-free power provided by fuel cells in a sensible alternative that is available today. I urge my colleagues to support us for a sensible fuel cell power tax credit.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the more than 43 United States soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in the mission to liberate the Iraqi people and to disarm Saddam Hussein: The 16 who are missing, the 7 who have been captured, the 109 who have been injured, and all of those men and women on the ground, in the skies, and on the seas, who are so bravely supporting the cause of Operation Iraqi Freedom. By now, we have all seen the images on our television screens, yet little can we truly comprehend the real nature of the dangers they face, and the courage they must summon. Let us then dedicate these days to the acknowledgment of their heroism, for how profoundly grateful and blessed we are that these men and women are committed to serving our Nation and the ideals for which it stands during this pivotal and tumultuous chapter in America's proud history. In particular, I rise this morning to honor two Maine sons--Marine MAJ Jay Thomas Aubin and Marine CPL Brian Matthew Kennedy--who were among the twelve U.S. and British Marines killed Thursday, March 20 when their CH-46E Sea Helicopter crashed in Kuwait, just seven miles from the Iraq border. While I never had the opportunity to meet these two exceptional Marines in person, over the last week I feel I have come to know them, at least in some small but very meaningful way. MAJ Aubin and CPL Kennedy embodied the Marine Corps values of honor, courage and dedication--no matter the odds, no matter the fight. They had the mental, moral and physical strength to follow the U.S. Marine decree to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. Both men willingly and knowingly laid their lives on the line to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and protect our national security. Both men believed in their mission. Marines are often described as a family. They are initiated en masse by boot camps and extreme conditions many of us cannot even begin to imagine. They train together day in and day out and understand each other's struggles, fears, and feelings of pride. And they fight together, bound by a common code and a calling, gallantly facing any enemy whose goal is the destruction of our way of life. Indeed, they live by one simple truth, that risking American lives is sometimes necessary to defending America's freedom. This realization and their willingness to act upon it is what makes the sacrifice of MAJ Aubin and CPL Kennedy all the more poignant. So we must celebrate their lives and memories as the extraordinary people they truly were. I attended a service this past weekend in Winslow, ME, for MAJ Aubin. The day was made all the more special as CPL Kennedy's mother, Melissa Derbyshire, was also in attendance, and my heart goes out to both families brought together by sorrow in what for them is surely the most difficult of times. It is through remembrance that these two great Mainers will live on, so today and forevermore we will remember. The eldest of three sons, MAJ Jay Thomas Aubin was a native of Skowhegan. As a young child, his undying first love was flight. His grandfather was an airplane mechanic and his father spent his spare time buying, selling and flying airplanes. His mother, Nancy Chamberlain, said Jay started flying when he was two years old. She recalls that his father, Thomas Aubin, had some two-seater planes and would take him flying from Norridgewock Airport. His brothers Joel and Jeffrey always considered him to be the ``overachiever of the family'', pointing out his ``student of the month'' and ``student of the year'' awards from Skowhegan Area High School and his participation in after- school activities, like band and wrestling. He even set up his own ``boot camp'' in his senior year so he would be in top physical shape. Jay joined the Marines straight out of high school and was fortunate enough to meet the woman who would later become his wife, Rhonda who was also a Marine at the time. They were married and have two children, Alicia, 10 and Nathan, 7. Jay was in the Marines for 4 years, came home to Maine and enrolled in Southern Maine Technical College in 1989 and earned an associate's degree in applied science and, later, a bachelor's degree in business management from the University of Southern Maine. His love and dedication to the Marines was so strong that upon graduation Jay re-enlisted as an officer. A true testimony to his skill and leadership, he was invited to join the elite corps that pilots the Presidential helicopter, Marine One. But before he was able to assume this new duty, he was asked to become a ``Top Gun'' instructor in night flight for helicopter pilots. He, Rhonda and their children moved to Yuma, AZ, in June, 2002 to complete his latest mission and he remained there until he was called to go to Kuwait. After his tragic death, his mother received a letter Major Aubin had mailed two days before his helicopter went down. It said, ``I want to thank you for everything over the years. You always tried your best to put us first at your expense.'' With that letter, it was as though his mother, Nancy, could hear her son's voice one last time--and what she heard was a message of undying gratitude and love. In recent days, his friends and family have described him as ``genuine and friendly and always smiling'' and ``passionate about his job and his country.'' His alma mater held a memorial service to honor him and has established a scholarship in his name. This is a man who was well loved and who touched the lives of everyone around him, especially his family. His aunt, Rella Collins, describes him as ``the best of the best. He did us all proud.'' According to his mother in his last conversation before he departed, Jay was at peace with his mission, remarking ``If anything happens to me, just remember I'm happy and I'm doing what I love to do.'' The same has been said about Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy, whose mother, Melissa Derbyshire, and stepfather, John Derbyshire, live in Port Clyde, Me. John's description of Brian gets to the heart of his character--``This man loved living and life itself. His greatest pleasures were cooking, eating lobster and mussels, his friends, lacrosse, rock climbing and doing his best at any task he was given to do--just as he did his job as a Marine crew chief aboard the CH-46 helicopter.'' Corporal Kennedy graduated from Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, IL with honors in 1995 and then attended Purdue University before transferring to Texas Tech. He enlisted in the Marines in 1999, according to his own words, ``because he thought he could do the best job.'' He had been a Marine for 3 years when he was lost to us in last weeks' helicopter crash. His family members speak of his sacrifice. His mother, Melissa, recalls him having to wait in line for 3 hours to just call home. Brian told his mother he would do his best to come home, but she says she ``was lucky enough to know him for 25 years'' and she remembers him ``always laughing and having a good time.'' Brian's father, Mark Kennedy, speaks of his son's time in the Marines, saying Brian was ``very pleased to be in Kuwait and was thrilled to have the assignment he had. He gave his life in an effort to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people.'' We will all agree that these brave young men did not die in vain-- indeed, in the words of Melissa Derbyshire, ``they died for all of us.'' The loss of life is the ultimate tragedy of war, but from it, we can hope, will come peace. It is the Jay Aubin's and Brian Kennedy's of our unique history that have enabled America to become the greatest democracy civilization has ever known. They are a constant reminder of the sacrifice of one generation for the next. It has been said we are the land of the free precisely because we are the home of the brave. At the first national Memorial Day service, in 1868, General James A. Garfield, the future President, addressed the difficulty in speaking of fallen Americans. During a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, Garfield said: ``With words,'' Garfield said, ``we make promises, plight faith, praise virtue. Promises may not be kept; plighted faith may be broken; and vaunted virtue may be only the cunning mask of vice. ``We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens. For love of country they accepted death and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and virtue.'' James A. Garfield could not have said it better. The enormity of the contribution made by our military men and women overwhelms the words we have within our grasp to honor that contribution. The entire nation will be forever indebted to Major Jay Thomas Aubin and Corporal Brian Matthew Kennedy. The Aubin, Chamberlain, Kennedy and Derbyshire families are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope all of the Senate will join me in honoring these two outstanding, exceptional, extraordinary Marines today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to introduce a bill that will promote the expanded use of an environmentally sound and efficient energy technology--fuel cell power. The United States has had a long, inseparable relationship with energy. The Americans of the 19th century would not have populated the West as they did without the railroad and its steam engines. New York's Pearl Street Station, designed by Thomas Edison in 1882, demonstrated the immense possibilities of large-scale electricity generation that would revolutionize our Nation and the world. And, of course, the 20th century is posted with landmark American innovations an inventions in oil use and production, nuclear power, and solar energy. As we begin our journey into the 21st century, we must begin a new chapter for energy use through fuel cell power. Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream, as every manned U.S. space mission has relied upon fuel cells for electricity and drinking water. From a New York City police station to a postal facility in Alaska to hospitals, schools, banks, military installations and manufacturing facilities around the world, fuel cell units are efficiently generating dependable power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for upwards of 2 years with only routine maintenance. Fuel cell technology offers a clean, secure, efficient, and dependable source of energy that should be part of our national energy strategy. Not only do fuel cells deliver the high quality, reliable power that is considered an absolute necessity for many portions of our society, they reduce grid demand while improving grid flexibility. Fuel cells are an ideal energy source to address the Nation's pressing energy needs. Using electro-chemical reaction to convert energy from hydrogen-rich fuel cell sources into electricity, fuel cells reduce the need for fossil fuel consumption. And, since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce virtually no air pollution and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the major greenhouse gas thought to be responsible for climate change variability. In fact, a 200 kilowatt fuel power plant produces less than one ounce of pollutants for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity it yields. In comparison, the average fossil fuel plans produces nearly 25 pounds of pollutants to generate the same 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. That is 400 times the amount of a fuel cell power plant. The current problem is that it is difficult for the consumer to take advantage of fuel cells because, as with any new technology, the introductory price is high. To create the market incentives necessary to speed the commercialization of this technology, the Lieberman-Snow legislation provides a property owner a five year, $1,000 per kilowatt stationary fuel cell tax credit, including labor and installation costs, for business and non business power plants--stationary and portable--that have an electrical generation efficiency greater than 30 percent and generate at least 0.5 kilowatts of electricity using an electrochemical process. To put this electrical generation in perspective, a home uses approximately 1 to 2 kilowatts of power, on average. By lowering the initial price for consumers, market introduction and production volume of fuel cells will be accelerated with the end result being a significant reduction in manufacturing costs. The decrease in price would enable even more consumers to use one of the cleanest, most reliable and most efficient means to generate electricity. This tailored fuel cell tax credit for a stationary and portable fuel cells is designed to benefit the widest range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers with a meaningful incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial use. As summer approaches, power shortages and interruptions can be expected throughout the country. We must increase our investment and commitment to non-traditional energy sources such as fuel cells. This reliable, combustion-free power provided by fuel cells in a sensible alternative that is available today. I urge my colleagues to support us for a sensible fuel cell power tax credit.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2003. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our Nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 39,000 calls for assistance, assisted $1.5 billion in property, and saved 3,653 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, act of terror, and other national security threats. In 2002, the Coast Guard seized 117,780 pounds of cocaine and 40,316 pounds of marijuana preventing them from reaching our streets and playgrounds. They also stopped over 5,100 illegal migrants from reaching our shores. They conducted patrols to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to over 12,000 pollution incidents. In the wake of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever in the service's largest peace-time port security operation since World War II. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission continues today. Last year alone, the Coast Guard aggressively defended our homeland by conducting more than 36,000 port security patrols, boarded over 10,000 vessels, escorted over 6,000 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. And recently we have asked even more of the Coast Guard. Last November we passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which recently transferred the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland Security. This historic law positions the Coast Guard as a cornerstone of the new Department, but also recognizes that the Coast Guard is responsible for many other missions on which Americans depend. First and foremost, it ensures that the Coast Guard will remain a distinct entity and continue in its role as one of the five Armed Services. The Coast Guard plays a unique role in our government, by serving both an armed service as well as a law enforcement agency and this must not be changed or altered. It also contains language which maintains the primacy of the Coast Guard's diverse missions, prevents the Secretary of this new department from making substantial or significant changes to the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions, and prohibits the new department from transferring any Coast Guard personnel or assets to another agency except for personnel details and assignment that do not reduce the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security missions. By introducing the Coast Guard Authorization bill today, I intend to continue giving the Coast Guard my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the resources that it needs to carry out its many critically important missions. Unfortunately Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has come on the backs of its 38,000 men and women who faithfully serve our country. I believe we need to shift this burden off our people and instead adequately provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs. The bill I introduce today authorizes funding and personnel levels for the Coast Guard in Fiscal Year 2004. The bill authorizes funding for FY 2004 at $6.7 billion. This represents a 9.4 percent increase over the levels contained in last year's authorization bill and a 13 percent increase over the funds requested for Fiscal Year 2003. This authorization will help restore the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection to near their pre-September 11, 2001 levels. This bill also includes numerous measures which will improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses various Coast Guard personnel management and quality of life issues such by providing eligible enlisted personnel with a critical skills training bonus, amending the number and distribution of commissioned officers to retain needed skill sets and experiences, expanding the Coast Guard's housing authorities to ease housing shortages, and including several measures that grant the Coast Guard parity with the other Armed Services. Another critical provision in the bill will enable us to better oversee the historic and beautiful lighthouses that we have entrusted to non-profit groups across the country. Over the years we have transferred numerous lighthouses and we need to ensure that these groups continue to be responsible stewards of these national treasures. Unfortunately, we have recently learned of lighthouses which have been allowed to deteriorate and one that was even offered for sale through a real estate broker. This provision will ensure these national treasures are protected and will allow the Secretary of Interior to monitor future lighthouse conveyances and ensure that they meet all of the conditions of the original transfers. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. To accomplish its many vital missions, the Coast Guard desperately needs to recapitalize its offshore fleet of cutters and aircraft. The Coast Guard operates the third oldest of the world's 39 similar naval fleets with several cutters dating back to World War II. These platforms are technologically obsolete, require excessive maintenance, lack essential speed, and have poor interoperability which in turn limit their overall mission effectiveness and efficiency. Unfortunately they are reaching the end of their serviceable life just as the Coast Guard needs them the most. The Coast Guard is in the early stages of a major recapitalization program for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the system-of-systems procurement strategy the Coast Guard is utilizing. This bill authorizes full funding for this critical long-term recapitalization program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2003. The Coast Guard serves as the guardian of our maritime homeland security and provides many critical services for our Nation. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 39,000 calls for assistance, assisted $1.5 billion in property, and saved 3,653 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, act of terror, and other national security threats. In 2002, the Coast Guard seized 117,780 pounds of cocaine and 40,316 pounds of marijuana preventing them from reaching our streets and playgrounds. They also stopped over 5,100 illegal migrants from reaching our shores. They conducted patrols to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to over 12,000 pollution incidents. In the wake of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever in the service's largest peace-time port security operation since World War II. This rapid escalation of the Coast Guard's homeland security mission continues today. Last year alone, the Coast Guard aggressively defended our homeland by conducting more than 36,000 port security patrols, boarded over 10,000 vessels, escorted over 6,000 vessels, and maintained more than 115 security zones. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. And recently we have asked even more of the Coast Guard. Last November we passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which recently transferred the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the new Department of Homeland Security. This historic law positions the Coast Guard as a cornerstone of the new Department, but also recognizes that the Coast Guard is responsible for many other missions on which Americans depend. First and foremost, it ensures that the Coast Guard will remain a distinct entity and continue in its role as one of the five Armed Services. The Coast Guard plays a unique role in our government, by serving both an armed service as well as a law enforcement agency and this must not be changed or altered. It also contains language which maintains the primacy of the Coast Guard's diverse missions, prevents the Secretary of this new department from making substantial or significant changes to the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions, and prohibits the new department from transferring any Coast Guard personnel or assets to another agency except for personnel details and assignment that do not reduce the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security missions. By introducing the Coast Guard Authorization bill today, I intend to continue giving the Coast Guard my full support, and I hope my colleagues will work with me to provide the Coast Guard with the resources that it needs to carry out its many critically important missions. Unfortunately Coast Guard's rapid operational escalation has come on the backs of its 38,000 men and women who faithfully serve our country. I believe we need to shift this burden off our people and instead adequately provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs. The bill I introduce today authorizes funding and personnel levels for the Coast Guard in Fiscal Year 2004. The bill authorizes funding for FY 2004 at $6.7 billion. This represents a 9.4 percent increase over the levels contained in last year's authorization bill and a 13 percent increase over the funds requested for Fiscal Year 2003. This authorization will help restore the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection to near their pre-September 11, 2001 levels. This bill also includes numerous measures which will improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses various Coast Guard personnel management and quality of life issues such by providing eligible enlisted personnel with a critical skills training bonus, amending the number and distribution of commissioned officers to retain needed skill sets and experiences, expanding the Coast Guard's housing authorities to ease housing shortages, and including several measures that grant the Coast Guard parity with the other Armed Services. Another critical provision in the bill will enable us to better oversee the historic and beautiful lighthouses that we have entrusted to non-profit groups across the country. Over the years we have transferred numerous lighthouses and we need to ensure that these groups continue to be responsible stewards of these national treasures. Unfortunately, we have recently learned of lighthouses which have been allowed to deteriorate and one that was even offered for sale through a real estate broker. This provision will ensure these national treasures are protected and will allow the Secretary of Interior to monitor future lighthouse conveyances and ensure that they meet all of the conditions of the original transfers. Finally, we must recognize that the United States Coast Guard is a force conducting 21st century operations with 20th century technology. To accomplish its many vital missions, the Coast Guard desperately needs to recapitalize its offshore fleet of cutters and aircraft. The Coast Guard operates the third oldest of the world's 39 similar naval fleets with several cutters dating back to World War II. These platforms are technologically obsolete, require excessive maintenance, lack essential speed, and have poor interoperability which in turn limit their overall mission effectiveness and efficiency. Unfortunately they are reaching the end of their serviceable life just as the Coast Guard needs them the most. The Coast Guard is in the early stages of a major recapitalization program for the ships and aircraft designed to operate more than 50 miles offshore. The Integrated Deepwater System acquisition program is critical to the future viability of the Coast Guard. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and the system-of-systems procurement strategy the Coast Guard is utilizing. This bill authorizes full funding for this critical long-term recapitalization program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 500 fatalities since 1990. It was under the most tragic circumstances that this issue came to my State's attention last year. On September 12th, 2002, 14 migrant forestry workers were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off a bridge over the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in northern Maine. The sole survivor of this catastrophe escaped when he kicked out the rear window of the sinking van in what was the single worst motor vehicle accident in Maine's history. I quickly learned that this was the latest in a long line of deadly crashes involving the popular vans, which were initially designed to carry cargo rather than passengers and are highly prone to rollovers, especially when fully loaded. There are more than 500,000 of these vans on the road today, and they are frequently used for a wide variety of purposes, from van pools and church outings, to transportation to and from airports, to transporting college athletics teams or workers. In response to the spate of fatal accidents involving the vans in the past few years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, conducted a study in 2001 to analyze the vans' propensity to rollover. In May 2001, after concluding the study, NHTSA issued a national warning to users of such vehicles that they have an increased risk of rollovers under certain conditions. They issued a similar warning in April 2002. The results of the NHTSA study are dramatic, finding that rollover risks rise sharply as the number of van occupants increases. With 10 or more occupants, the rollover rate is nearly three times the rate of vans that are lightly loaded. And with more than 15 occupants, the risk of a rollover is almost six times greater than if the van only has five occupants. Following up on NHTSA's work, and as the deadly march of van accidents continued, last year both the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen issued a number of safety recommendations on the issue. Given the increasing use of 15-passenger vans in transporting larger groups, I believe it is time to move beyond warnings and for Congress to take action to address the safety of these vans. The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15- passenger vans in their dynamic rollover testing program. While NHTSA is currently developing this program, as mandated by The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation, TREAD, Act of 2000, it does not include 15-passenger vans. Given the demonstrated propensity of these vans to roll, and the deadly effects of a rollover in fully loaded passenger vans, it is vital that we subject them to the same safety standards that NHTSA plans to apply to passenger cars and sport utility vehicles, SUVs. My bill would also require NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in their New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, rollover resistance ratings, and to test them at various load conditions. The NCAP, which provides consumers with a measure of the relative safety potential of vehicles in frontal crashes, was expanded recently to include the rollover risk of passenger cars and light trucks. However, the expansion does not extend to vehicles that carry more than 10 passengers. I believe that before churches or colleges or employers purchase one of these vans, they should have access to NCAP information about their rollover propensity relative to other vehicles. In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of technological systems to help drivers in maintaining control of the vans. Specifically, NHTSA would look at electronic stability control, ESC, systems that some high-end SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover warning systems. ESC systems are computer-controlled systems that attempt to stabilize the vehicle by monitoring a vehicle's movement and the direction the driver is steering. I am also aware of rollover warning systems under development, attachable to the rear-view mirror, that will warn a driver if his speed or driving maneuvers risk a rollover. In short, technology can help us to greatly reduce the tendency of these vans to roll, and in the process save lives. These vans are also in widespread use for commercial purposes like airport shuttles and vanpools. Therefore, my legislation would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, to finish their rulemaking on the application of federal motor carrier safety regulations to 15 passenger vans used for commercial purposes. Both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed FMCSA to promulgate regulations on the commercial use of the vans. While they initiated rulemaking in 1999, to date, FMCSA applies no operating regulations whatsoever to these vans. Finally, this bill addresses the use of 15-passenger vans to transport schoolchildren. Under current law, schools are prohibited from purchasing these vans new to transport schoolchildren because they do not meet the same safety standards as schoolbuses do. However, counter-intuitively, Federal law is silent about the purchase of used vans, or the use of rental vans. My bill addresses this loophole by incorporating language introduced during the 107th Congress by Representative Mark Udall of Colorado to extend the ban from the sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying of vans. This is intended to make the buyers accountable as well as the seller. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge about this disparity in current law, and he agreed that when we're talking about transporting schoolchildren, what's good for new vans should be good for used and rented vans. Also, to make it worth NHTSA's while to pursue violators, my bill would raise the maximum penalty for violations of the prohibition on the sale or rental of these vans to schools from $5,000 to $25,000. I truly believe that this legislation will cut down on the number of fatal accidents involving 15-passenger vans by subjecting them to federal rollover standards, providing consumers with adequate safety information and making sure that our schoolchildren are driven to school in safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to enhance the safety of large passenger vans, which are highly susceptible to rollovers and have been associated with more than 500 fatalities since 1990. It was under the most tragic circumstances that this issue came to my State's attention last year. On September 12th, 2002, 14 migrant forestry workers were killed when their 15-passenger van rolled off a bridge over the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in northern Maine. The sole survivor of this catastrophe escaped when he kicked out the rear window of the sinking van in what was the single worst motor vehicle accident in Maine's history. I quickly learned that this was the latest in a long line of deadly crashes involving the popular vans, which were initially designed to carry cargo rather than passengers and are highly prone to rollovers, especially when fully loaded. There are more than 500,000 of these vans on the road today, and they are frequently used for a wide variety of purposes, from van pools and church outings, to transportation to and from airports, to transporting college athletics teams or workers. In response to the spate of fatal accidents involving the vans in the past few years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, conducted a study in 2001 to analyze the vans' propensity to rollover. In May 2001, after concluding the study, NHTSA issued a national warning to users of such vehicles that they have an increased risk of rollovers under certain conditions. They issued a similar warning in April 2002. The results of the NHTSA study are dramatic, finding that rollover risks rise sharply as the number of van occupants increases. With 10 or more occupants, the rollover rate is nearly three times the rate of vans that are lightly loaded. And with more than 15 occupants, the risk of a rollover is almost six times greater than if the van only has five occupants. Following up on NHTSA's work, and as the deadly march of van accidents continued, last year both the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen issued a number of safety recommendations on the issue. Given the increasing use of 15-passenger vans in transporting larger groups, I believe it is time to move beyond warnings and for Congress to take action to address the safety of these vans. The bill I am introducing today would require NHTSA to include 15- passenger vans in their dynamic rollover testing program. While NHTSA is currently developing this program, as mandated by The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation, TREAD, Act of 2000, it does not include 15-passenger vans. Given the demonstrated propensity of these vans to roll, and the deadly effects of a rollover in fully loaded passenger vans, it is vital that we subject them to the same safety standards that NHTSA plans to apply to passenger cars and sport utility vehicles, SUVs. My bill would also require NHTSA to include 15-passenger vans in their New Car Assessment Program, NCAP, rollover resistance ratings, and to test them at various load conditions. The NCAP, which provides consumers with a measure of the relative safety potential of vehicles in frontal crashes, was expanded recently to include the rollover risk of passenger cars and light trucks. However, the expansion does not extend to vehicles that carry more than 10 passengers. I believe that before churches or colleges or employers purchase one of these vans, they should have access to NCAP information about their rollover propensity relative to other vehicles. In addition, the bill requires NHTSA to work with van manufacturers to evaluate and test the potential of technological systems to help drivers in maintaining control of the vans. Specifically, NHTSA would look at electronic stability control, ESC, systems that some high-end SUVs are already equipped with and rear-view mirror-based rollover warning systems. ESC systems are computer-controlled systems that attempt to stabilize the vehicle by monitoring a vehicle's movement and the direction the driver is steering. I am also aware of rollover warning systems under development, attachable to the rear-view mirror, that will warn a driver if his speed or driving maneuvers risk a rollover. In short, technology can help us to greatly reduce the tendency of these vans to roll, and in the process save lives. These vans are also in widespread use for commercial purposes like airport shuttles and vanpools. Therefore, my legislation would require the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, to finish their rulemaking on the application of federal motor carrier safety regulations to 15 passenger vans used for commercial purposes. Both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 directed FMCSA to promulgate regulations on the commercial use of the vans. While they initiated rulemaking in 1999, to date, FMCSA applies no operating regulations whatsoever to these vans. Finally, this bill addresses the use of 15-passenger vans to transport schoolchildren. Under current law, schools are prohibited from purchasing these vans new to transport schoolchildren because they do not meet the same safety standards as schoolbuses do. However, counter-intuitively, Federal law is silent about the purchase of used vans, or the use of rental vans. My bill addresses this loophole by incorporating language introduced during the 107th Congress by Representative Mark Udall of Colorado to extend the ban from the sale of vans to leasing, renting and buying of vans. This is intended to make the buyers accountable as well as the seller. At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, I asked NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge about this disparity in current law, and he agreed that when we're talking about transporting schoolchildren, what's good for new vans should be good for used and rented vans. Also, to make it worth NHTSA's while to pursue violators, my bill would raise the maximum penalty for violations of the prohibition on the sale or rental of these vans to schools from $5,000 to $25,000. I truly believe that this legislation will cut down on the number of fatal accidents involving 15-passenger vans by subjecting them to federal rollover standards, providing consumers with adequate safety information and making sure that our schoolchildren are driven to school in safe vehicles. I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, our amendment is straightforward, responsible and practical. It reflects the reality of the confluence of circumstances we face--a war on terrorism and in Iraq, a struggling economy, increased homeland security needs, and increased Federal deficits, with this year's projected deficit already having increased by more than 54 percent. The amendment is a carefully calibrated, balanced approach to respond to two compelling needs--first, to provide immediate, short-term stimulus to an economy that has lost 2.3 million jobs and, second, to avoid driving up deficits over the long term which, in turn, lead to increased long-term interest rates that would stagnate our economy. Our approach is simple--we differentiate between those aspects of the growth package that truly provide quick, short-term economic stimulus and those that do not. For those that don't, let's debate them later, and if they have merit, let's pay for them as we go, not with deficit spending that threatens our economy in the future as well as our ability to address pressing national priorities such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare as baby boomers begin to retire in 2008. Mr. President, our measure provides a ``right-sized'' stimulus of $350 billion while committing $376 billion to deficit reduction. It deserves strong bipartisan support, and I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. I want to make a couple of points. This amendment is straightforward, practical, prudent, proportional; it is a carefully calibrated approach in terms of whether we can afford a certain size growth plan. That is why we made the decision. It wasn't a question of splitting the difference; it was a question of making a distinction in terms of what constitutes a stimulus, what we can afford to pay for, and what we cannot afford to pay for. That is how I approached this amendment. I think it is important that we think carefully if we want to provide deficit financing for nonstimulative proposals. Finally, I should make the point that we see deficits way into the future, until the year 2013, at a time in which we have to address Social Security and Medicare. We cannot diminish our ability to address those critical programs and the challenges they face.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, these obviously are very difficult times and, obviously, the point at which we find ourselves in trying to reconcile some of the more significant issues that are incorporated in this budget resolution. As the Senator from Louisiana indicated, several of us have been working across the political aisle--with the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Ohio--to reconcile some of the issues with respect to the central question in this budget resolution in terms of the extent to which we should have a growth package--what type, what size, and what should be included in that growth package. Obviously, the policy will not be determined in the budget resolution. But certainly we can determine the size that could dictate ultimately the policy in the days and weeks ahead. I appreciate our ability to work across the political aisle to help craft this amendment. As the Senator from Louisiana indicated, it is an amendment that will reduce the size of the tax cut from $726 billion to $350 billion. And the remaining $376 billion would be applied towards deficit reduction. Through this alone, we would achieve $86 billion savings in interest costs. I happen to believe this is a responsible, well balanced approach that will both stimulate our economy in the short term and protect our economy from the effects of unnecessary deficits in the long term. That is particularly important because when we compound future deficits, we raise the likelihood we will drive up long-term interest rates. I understand the challenges of bringing forth a budget resolution. First, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, in his new position as chairman, for having the persistence and the determination, as well as the dedication, to bring this budget resolution before the Senate. I commend him for his tireless work in forging and producing the budget we have debated on the floor this week. As a former member of the Budget Committee, I know what goes into this process. I also know that Senator Nickles wants what we did not have last year, which was a budget resolution. It is critical because it imposes structure and discipline and defines the priorities in Federal expenditures. That is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. That is why it is so critical and instrumental to get it done, to pass a budget resolution, so we can advance the budget process that ultimately will determine the policy as well as the appropriations, so we do not have what we had this year. This year, the first month and a half was devoted to the unfinished business of the last Congress--half of the domestic budget--because we had failed to pass a budget resolution. So that is important. That is why I and the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from Ohio worked together, because we understood, in order to pass a bipartisan budget resolution, it was also important to focus on some of the issues that would divide us. One of those questions was, of course, on the size of the growth plan as proposed by the President. I commend the President for his leadership in initiating the debate on the necessity of stimulating our economy. I happen to share his belief that we should take steps to rejuvenate this sluggish economy, to try to do what we can in the short term to strengthen the economy. I also happen to believe that our budget resolution has to bear the stamp of the totality of the extraordinary historic events and times in which we live. In the last 2 years, it has been an extraordinary transformation for America, in the aftermath of the most horrific event, the devastating attack on American soil, the ongoing war on terrorism, the initiation of military action in Iraq and more than 250,000 troops poised for potential war. We also have grave concerns about the nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula. All of these global uncertainties have cast a dark shadow over a domestic economy that was already on shaky ground even before September 11. The events of September 11 catapulted an already shaky economy into a recession. Indeed, over the past year our Nation's economy has only grown worse. The economy grew at an anemic .7 percent in the fourth quarter, the weakest quarterly gain since the end of the recession, and just last month 308,000 people joined the unemployment rolls, bringing our unemployment to an 8-year high. Since the recession began, we now have lost more than 2.3 million jobs in the private sector. Without question, we need to have a stimulus package to address the short-term, immediate economy. As Allen Sinai said, chief economist for Decision Economics, the fiscal stimulus is ``absolutely essential'' because the U.S. and world economies are struggling. In short, failing to act now by passing an immediate growth package in this budget is to risk contributing to a jobless recovery or incurring a double dip recession. We cannot afford to wait until our military action in Iraq is concluded. This is the right time. This is the right vehicle for action. We can always debate further issues later. But we will never be able to turn the clock back to jump-start the economy. When we were involved in deliberations about a stimulus package in 2002, we had numerous discussions with Chairman Greenspan and other experts. The one thing we did hear was this: If you want to effect the short-term behavior of the economy, you have to do it as soon as possible to have the maximum impact on short-term behavior. So we cannot afford to lose time. I believe we should have a growth package in this budget. At the same time, given these unprecedented times and the confluence of circumstances on which they are defined, whether it is the economic uncertainties, the war in Iraq, the projection of higher and higher budget deficits, the domestic fiscal challenges that lurk on the horizon because of Social Security and Medicare, our responsibility to carefully evaluate the impact of any tax reduction and spending increases in this budget is that much greater. That is the context in which we must shape this budget. These are realities that we cannot afford to ignore. Indeed, our projected Federal deficit for this fiscal year is now estimated to be $246 billion. That is an increase of 54 percent. That is without any new spending or tax cuts. There were only 3 other years in the last 32 years in which we saw higher deficit levels in terms of real dollars. What is required in this budget resolution is careful calibration, if we are to produce short-term benefits for our economy without jeopardizing long-term fiscal responsibility and economic growth. Let there be no mistake, just as the need for short-term economic stimulus is compelling, so, too, is the need to return to balanced budgets and, indeed, surpluses as soon as possible. I have been in Congress, both the House and Senate, for 25 years. I have seen how difficult it is to achieve a balanced budget. After all, it took 18 years of my career before we saw the realization, the accomplishment of a balanced budget amendment. We all cheered on the success, that for the first time we were able to escape the chronic budget deficits that had characterized the budgetary process for decades. Then a year later we were able to have the first on-budget surplus. We have been able to have 4 years of surpluses from 1998 to 2001. I don't want that to be an anomaly. I want deficits to be an anomaly. As I said, over the last two decades, I saw the progression of the deficits. I saw the progression of various procedures and how we were going to attack deficits, from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to every other mechanism. There were those who said we should not have a balanced budget because they said it was a gimmick. I said, if it was a gimmick, we would have passed it a long time ago. It wasn't a gimmick. It worked. We cannot risk the impact of undue deficits in the long term because those chronic deficits drive up interest rates. That is going to stymie our ability to do what we need to do for future generations. It will diminish our ability to address the problems associated with Social Security and Medicare. That is how I am approaching this economic growth question in the budget resolution. What will stimulate the economy today versus what will not? And for those measures in this package, and the funding measure that we are including in this budget resolution are not strong, immediate, and of limited duration, if they truly have merit in their own right, then they should be paid for as we go. We need to ask ourselves in this current circumstance, can we really afford to deficit finance nonstimulative proposals? Maybe we could do it in a different time or place, but not now. It all comes back to setting priorities. That is what we said time and again in all those years that we were fighting for a balanced budget that was accomplished right here in the Senate back in 1996. That is what we talked about, establishing priorities, getting our fiscal house in order. Now that is what we need to do in this budget resolution. We have to draw lines, and we have to draw distinctions. What I am saying tonight is, if those proposals that are nonstimulative to change our tax structure are part of a long-term economic growth plan or are part of tax reform, those proposals should be fully paid for so as to not exacerbate our future economic situation and lead to greater problems down the road. That is not my view. It is the prevalent view among economists--Chairman Greenspan and so many others across the board--because we are dealing with so many challenges and crises simultaneously. How much can we afford to do now? How much? How much is too much? Should it be $726 billion? Should it be a trillion? Should it be $2 trillion? We have to draw lines. That is why I am here tonight. That is why I reached across party lines, to work together so we can pass a bipartisan budget resolution that reaches a consensus on this key issue of whether or not we should have a growth plan, and, if so, how much can we afford to do now? I drew the line on what was stimulus versus nonstimulus. We need to have a carefully calibrated growth plan that is limited, of short duration, to have an immediate impact on the economy and that will not have a negative impact on long-term interest rates. I looked at the outyears because I wanted to get exactly a snapshot of where we are today and where we are going in 2013. All I can see down the road are deficits as far as the eye can see. We have deficits every year. We have deficits through 2013, the year in which we will also have the onset of 77 million baby boomers retiring. So we will have a convergence of not only that massive wave of retirement that will impact Social Security and Medicare, but we will also continue to have deficits. I looked at the projections by CBO. What I found were interesting facts. CBO projects a return to surpluses in 2008. But let it be clear, the assumptions do not account for real budget costs--the war in Iraq, tax cuts, prescription drugs, more spending on defense and homeland security, all national imperatives. In fact, CBO's baseline assumes real discretionary spending will remain constant. That certainly contravenes the recent trends of around 8 percent growth in spending. According to the Brookings Institute, it said: Such assumption implies real outlays will fall by 9 percent relative to population, and by 20 percent relative to gross domestic product over the next decade. I do not think anybody seriously believes that is realistic. Putting these costs into the budget, we could have a deficit this year of over $300 billion and next year it could approach $400 billion. If we anticipate a supplemental of $100 billion or more in the short term, that will push our deficit near 4 percent of GDP, and that will be a historical high. I have heard time and again these deficits represent a minimal amount as a percentage of the GDP. I heard those arguments through the eighties. I heard them in the nineties. How much is too high? Today it is 2 percent. Tomorrow it will be 3 percent. With the supplemental next week, it could be 4 percent. Why are we not focusing on how we can return to a balanced budget as soon as possible? Are balanced budgets no longer part of the political and economic lexicon? We should be devoting our time to figuring out, given all these exigencies, extenuating circumstances which, without question, need to be funded, how much can we do now in terms of a tax cut? We had a tax cut in 2001. We had a tax cut in 2002, and in my entire career, I have supported tax cuts, but now we are looking at multiple challenges on the horizon that demand significant Federal expenditures. Therefore, I say, let's be prudent, let's be proportional, let's be practical, and target the growth plan to $350 billion that would be sufficient to have an effect on the short-term economy to turn this economy around. Some people say wait until after the conflict with Iraq is over. If you have a weak economy, we have no way of prognosticating the future in terms of what the economy will look like in the aftermath of Iraq. We may have fundamentals strong enough that we can rebound. Certainly Chairman Greenspan has indicated he thinks that will be the case. If not, we do not want to take the risk, particularly because it affects the well-being of the American people and particularly those who have lost their jobs. So let's put something in place now. Mr. President, $350 billion seems to me to be a right size approach to do that for the short term. Some people say that is just splitting the difference, 726, 350, it is half a loaf. It is splitting the difference. It is the moderate's approach to splitting it in half. It is not about splitting the difference, it is about making a distinction. It is making a distinction between what is a stimulus and what is not, what we can pay for now and what we can pay for in the future. That is the difference, and that happens to be a major difference. Finally, when I look to the future, I think we all share the concern about the fact that we now have reverted back to using the surplus of the Social Security trust fund to mask the size of the true deficit. As I said earlier, we broke that chronic pattern of bad fiscal behavior. We were able to finally realize that moment where we could say that we no longer use the surpluses from the Social Security trust fund. We know why we are in this situation today. No one questions that. The question is, how do we get back to where we were? That is my concern. When I look at the long-term projections, when I look at the fact that in the year 2013, we will be using $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund surpluses to mask the true condition of the bottom line, that is of concern. That should be a concern to all of us, particularly at a time in which we will see as well the first wave of baby boomers retiring. These are serious times. We cannot afford to diminish our ability to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. We have looked to this next decade, the decade we are in, as a window of opportunity to return to surpluses to prepare us for the future challenges. But as we have seen over the last 18 months, we can see how projections dramatically change and opportunities have evaporated. We know we had a $5.6 trillion surplus just 2 years ago, but we also understand what happened on September 11 that transformed this country. We obviously had to address emergencies, homeland security, the war on terrorism, and 68 percent of the surpluses were evaporated as a result of the declining economy. So I do believe we need to have a growth plan, but we must exercise caution so that we do not aggravate the long-term picture and threaten our ability to address long-term priorities. We have to be cautious because when you have fluctuations, and as the ones that have been as dramatic as they have been over the last few years, it can increase or it can decrease the amount of revenues that are available for other programs and certainly can decrease the amount of revenues coming in to the Federal Treasury. Just a 1-percent fluctuation in the GDP can decrease tax receipts by $120 billion over 5 years and increase outlays by $52 billion over 5 years--just a 1-percent change. Think of where we have been in terms of economic growth and the fluctuations that have occurred. That is why I think we have to be prudent. The President was right to offer a growth plan, but I think we cannot ignore the impact of all the challenges we face. If we step back and take the long view, I do believe we have to make a decision in terms of how much we can afford to do now, and what we need to do is to stimulate the short-term economy. What we cannot afford to do, without paying for it, without adding to the deficit, is advancing long-term economic growth plans, tax reform, nonstimulative proposals. I hope my colleagues will give this very serious consideration in support of this amendment. I do not offer this lightly. I have taken this responsibility very seriously. I happen to believe it is important to get a strong bipartisan budget resolution with the right size number for a stimulus plan, a figure that will help us get a budget on a timely basis, a number that will help us to stimulate the economy. I happen to believe the amendment we are offering today strikes the right balance. It represents the most effective way, I believe, that we can advance a growth plan that can achieve the strongest possible support but, more importantly, have the maximum effect on our economy without affecting the long-term future. We know these are extraordinary times, but I hope we will not abandon our goals for fiscal discipline. I hope we will not compound the outlook, the chronic future budget deficits, and diminish our ability to address and finance our security in Medicare. We need to lift the economy but without adding to future deterioration. I hope we are not retreating in the notion that we can never return to balanced budgets. I hope we will concentrate on the goal of returning to balanced budgets as soon as it is possible. I hope we can begin now. I yield the floor.