Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as we stand here today on the Senate floor, America's finest citizens and the world's greatest military men and women have been called upon in the cause of disarming Saddam Hussein. These are Americans who willingly serve this country, who knowingly place themselves in harm's way to defend our Nation, and who are ready to do the jobs for which they have trained. These men and women in the Armed Services and intelligence community are unmatched in their professionalism and skill, and I have no doubt that they will prevail. As I said on the House floor in 1991, on behalf of the authorization of what would become Operation Desert Storm, ``the magnitude of the vote I now face is greater than any other I have or likely will cast.'' I was proven wrong on October 9, when I cast a vote of equal gravity and solemnity, authorizing the President to use force in the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. In the days since that vote, while President Bush pursued a course of diplomacy, Saddam Hussein instead pursued a course of deceit. Under the terms of UN Resolution 1441, approved unanimously by the Security Council, Hussein determined the course upon which we have now embarked by refusing to fully and immediately disarm. Armed conflict was not the hope of anyone among us. Now that it regrettably has become a necessary reality, we stand united in support of our troops who once again will be on the vanguard in service to freedom and the protection of all those nations that embrace this noble ideal. I have had the great privilege to meet countless soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, and veterans during my quarter-century tenure in Congress. We are grateful because we know that they are the bulwark behind which we stand, and against which our enemies strain. And we are in awe because we cannot fully comprehend their ability to so completely substitute the concept of ``self'' with the virtue of selflessness. Today, the realities of war weigh heavily on our hearts, and the focus of all our prayers is now with our men and women in uniform. In the protection of freedom, the disarming of Saddam Hussein, and the liberation of the people of Iraq, American sons and daughters may well make the ultimate sacrifice. That they would undertake that risk for our Nation and the world overwhelms the words available to honor their extraordinary spirit and courage. The best we can hope to do is to come together, behind our Commander in Chief and all of our troops, with nothing but the greatest pride in their courage and the strongest support for their mission. A freed Iraq, a world free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, and a menacing cloud lifted from the heartland of a troubled region--none of these would be possible without those men and women who put their lives at risk for the greater good. It is for them that we pass this resolution and pray for safe return. May God bless all those who wear the uniform of our armed forces, and my God bless the United States of America.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Boxer-Chafee amendment that has my cosponsorship along with 14 other colleagues. The amendment strikes the reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and drilling. The issue as to whether to open up a pristine and vital habitat refuge for a finite amount of oil is a fundamental policy question that should not have been injected into the budget process, thereby bypassing the Senate committee process. Including the drilling receipts and reconciliation instructions in the budget is a major policy initiative with serious environmental ramifications. The budget process, with its strict rules for limited debate, is not conducive to adequate consideration of this issue. In fact, opening up the Arctic Refuge proved to be extremely controversial in the 107th Congress and was debated at length during the Senate's consideration of its omnibus energy bill. On April 18, 2002, by a vote of 54 to 46, the Senate defeated a procedural motion to invoke cloture to shut off the debate. Revenues from oil leases in the Arctic Refuge have been estimated to be $1.2 billion over 10 years. I believe that the budgetary effects of oil leases in the Refuge are incidental compared with the weight of its policy impact. The tradeoffs just don't balance out when considering drilling for a finite supply of oil in the biological heart of Alaska's coastal plain. Drilling in the Refuge is not the solution to our Nation's current energy problems, and for years the issue has distracted us from the real answers to energy needs. Unfortunately, over the past several years, rather than being serious about offsetting the nation's increasing thirst for oil by increasing the use of alternate and renewable energy sources, we are now more dependent than ever on these foreign oil sources. If we are to be serious about addressing our energy needs, we should be advancing energy efficiency, energy conservation and clean, renewable sources of power so that we can reduce our need for fossil fuels, which is mainly responsible for air pollution and greenhouse gases impacting climate change. As the storm clouds gather today in the Middle East, we should be putting our energies into becoming more fuel efficient, for instance, by increasing corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards, to close the SUV loophole that currently allows the increasingly popular sport utility vehicles to get only 20.7 miles per gallon while passenger cars must meet a 27.5 mpg standard. Increasing the SUV standard to that of passenger cars would help to eliminate the need to import oil from the most volatile area of the globe. In addition, based on the estimate provided by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, it would realistically take seven to 12 years from approval to first production of oil, meaning that not a single drop of oil would be available to go to market for 7 to 12 years. In contrast, Paul Portney, Chairman of the National Academies' 2001 Report on CAFE standards, stated at the Joint Commerce and Energy Committees' hearing that year that ``. . . increases to fuel efficiency could be made in a few years.'' The fact is that, sooner or later, any oil found in ANWR will run out--while increasing CAFE standards will continue to decrease oil usage. It is estimated that one million barrels of oil per day would be saved by the Feinstein-Snowe bill that closes the SUV loophole. Improving the gasoline mileage of the Nation's new vehicles by just three miles per gallon could take less time and could be expected to save more oil than would ultimately be recovered over the lifetime of the finite oil resources in ANWR. The United States Geological Service estimates a 95 percent probability of 4.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and a five percent probability of 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Interestingly, CAFE increases would keep more greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide--the major cause of climate change--from going into the atmosphere because less gasoline would be used and therefore there would be less vehicle emissions of CO2. In contrast, the process of getting oil out of ANWR will add more greenhouse gases and air pollution because of the oil drilling facilities and processes required for extraction. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge poses environmental risks by impacting sensitive wildlife habitats. The Refuge is the summer home for thousands of migratory birds; year-round home to muskoxen, fox, wolf and wolverine; and its lagoons support eight species of marine mammals, 62 species of coastal fish, and seven species of freshwater fish. Of note, the Refuge is the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou herd. Much has been said on the Senate floor about the Central Arctic caribou herds in the North Slope drilling area that have greatly increased since the North Slope pipeline was installed, but these caribou have the ability to move south, unlike the Porcupine caribou herd within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that have no place to go due to the geological features of the narrow strip of an island-like area in the refuge between the ocean and the mountains. Again, I would like to reiterate that including drilling receipts and reconciliation instructions in the budget is not the right way to go as it is a major policy initiative with serious environmental ramifications that must be debated fully in the proper forum of committee hearings and subsequent floor and public debates. Consider the National Research Council's recently published report on the effects of drilling in the North Slope of Alaska. It stated that, even though oil companies have greatly improved practices in the Arctic, three decades of drilling along Alaska's North Slope have produced a steady accumulation of harmful environmental and social effects that will probably grow as exploration expands. Some of the problems, the report said, could last for centuries, both because environmental damage does not heal easily in the area's harsh climate and because it is uneconomical to remove structures or restore damaged areas once drilling is over. I urge my colleagues to vote to strike the language from the budget resolution so that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not begin.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Safety Net Act of 2003.'' I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman. Last year we worked together on this bill, and I am confident that with the modifications that we made to the legislation, we will be able to get it enacted into law. This legislation will improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to primary care services and preventative treatments by increasing access to Community Health Centers. Community Health Centers, also known as federally qualified health centers, provide care to more than 1 million medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. In many cases, Community Health Centers are the only source of primary and preventive services to which Medicare beneficiaries have access. This is especially true for people living in America's rural medically underserved areas. In Maine, nearly 20 percent of all Community Health Center patients are on Medicare, and this figure is expected to rise dramatically in the coming years as 25 percent of health center patients will be aging into Medicare in the upcoming decades. Besides primary and preventive care services, Community Health Centers provide other crucial services to seniors and the disabled, including treatment of chronic diseases, like diabetes and hypertension, mental health services and prescribed medications. Community Health Centers also provide transportation services or arrange for transportation that allows seniors to access health care in the absence of public transportation or a personal vehicle. In short, Community Health Centers provide the ease of ``one-stop health care shopping,'' meaning that seniors, instead of moving from location to location to receive comprehensive primary health services, typically can receive all of their essential primary care in one place. The Medicare Safety Net Access Act makes four changes to the Medicare program to ensure that Community Health Centers can fully participate in the Medicare program and provide seniors with the vital services. Ensuring that Medicare pays its fair share is important to the stability of Community Health Centers. While one in five of all Health Center patients in Maine are Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare represents only 17 percent of total Health Center revenues. For Health Centers to remain a viable part of the health care delivery system, we must make changes. Because Medicare currently does not reimburse health centers for the full cost of providing many vital services, like mammograms, nutrition assistance, laboratory and x-rays, health centers must utilize federal grant funding intended to serve the uninsured to cover these costs. This bill will require that Medicare, like state Medicaid programs, allow health centers to provide all Medicare-covered ambulatory services to Medicare beneficiaries in their communities. Further, Community Health Centers face many challenges in their fight to remain in business and serve their communities. In rural communities that have Community Health Centers, the health center physicians often continue treating patients when they enter long-term care facilities, such as a nursing home. And while Congress took steps to ensure that the new SNF prospective payment system did not adversely affect this relationship, it was not successful in identifying all of the services that are provided. This bill will add health centers to the current list of providers that can bill for services provided to patients in a hospital or nursing home. Given the role that Health Centers play in serving low-income and uninsured members of the community, providers often are willing to establish special arrangements with the Health Centers to provide additional assistance to these clients. An example of this type of arrangement is offering a reduced price for laboratory work for clients of a Community Health Center. However, under Federal anti-kickback laws this and other arrangements could be deemed illegal. Given the importance of developing community support for Health Centers and the need to encourage private-public partnerships to ensure that community financial support exists to care for low-income and uninsured individuals, this bill creates a safe harbor under the anti-kickback statute. The final step that this legislation takes to improve access to primary and preventative services for Medicare beneficiaries is to ensure that Medicare covers a Community Health Center's cost of providing care to Medicare+Choice beneficiaries. While the federal government requires Medicare, under the traditional fee-for-service program, to reimburse health centers for their cost to deliver care to beneficiaries, the same requirement does not exist for Medicare+Choice plans. This bill would require Medicare, like the Medicaid program, to provide wrap- around payments covering the difference between the amount paid to the health center under the managed care arrangement and the amount the health center would have received under traditional Medicare. By making these four straightforward changes, we will be able to enhance the care that all Medicare beneficiaries receive, especially those living in underserved communities. And we will ensure that Medicare patients are not diluting federal funding intended to help the 41 million Americans that were uninsured in 2001.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Medicare Safety Net Act of 2003.'' I am particularly pleased to introduce this bill with my good friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman. Last year we worked together on this bill, and I am confident that with the modifications that we made to the legislation, we will be able to get it enacted into law. This legislation will improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to primary care services and preventative treatments by increasing access to Community Health Centers. Community Health Centers, also known as federally qualified health centers, provide care to more than 1 million medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. In many cases, Community Health Centers are the only source of primary and preventive services to which Medicare beneficiaries have access. This is especially true for people living in America's rural medically underserved areas. In Maine, nearly 20 percent of all Community Health Center patients are on Medicare, and this figure is expected to rise dramatically in the coming years as 25 percent of health center patients will be aging into Medicare in the upcoming decades. Besides primary and preventive care services, Community Health Centers provide other crucial services to seniors and the disabled, including treatment of chronic diseases, like diabetes and hypertension, mental health services and prescribed medications. Community Health Centers also provide transportation services or arrange for transportation that allows seniors to access health care in the absence of public transportation or a personal vehicle. In short, Community Health Centers provide the ease of ``one-stop health care shopping,'' meaning that seniors, instead of moving from location to location to receive comprehensive primary health services, typically can receive all of their essential primary care in one place. The Medicare Safety Net Access Act makes four changes to the Medicare program to ensure that Community Health Centers can fully participate in the Medicare program and provide seniors with the vital services. Ensuring that Medicare pays its fair share is important to the stability of Community Health Centers. While one in five of all Health Center patients in Maine are Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare represents only 17 percent of total Health Center revenues. For Health Centers to remain a viable part of the health care delivery system, we must make changes. Because Medicare currently does not reimburse health centers for the full cost of providing many vital services, like mammograms, nutrition assistance, laboratory and x-rays, health centers must utilize federal grant funding intended to serve the uninsured to cover these costs. This bill will require that Medicare, like state Medicaid programs, allow health centers to provide all Medicare-covered ambulatory services to Medicare beneficiaries in their communities. Further, Community Health Centers face many challenges in their fight to remain in business and serve their communities. In rural communities that have Community Health Centers, the health center physicians often continue treating patients when they enter long-term care facilities, such as a nursing home. And while Congress took steps to ensure that the new SNF prospective payment system did not adversely affect this relationship, it was not successful in identifying all of the services that are provided. This bill will add health centers to the current list of providers that can bill for services provided to patients in a hospital or nursing home. Given the role that Health Centers play in serving low-income and uninsured members of the community, providers often are willing to establish special arrangements with the Health Centers to provide additional assistance to these clients. An example of this type of arrangement is offering a reduced price for laboratory work for clients of a Community Health Center. However, under Federal anti-kickback laws this and other arrangements could be deemed illegal. Given the importance of developing community support for Health Centers and the need to encourage private-public partnerships to ensure that community financial support exists to care for low-income and uninsured individuals, this bill creates a safe harbor under the anti-kickback statute. The final step that this legislation takes to improve access to primary and preventative services for Medicare beneficiaries is to ensure that Medicare covers a Community Health Center's cost of providing care to Medicare+Choice beneficiaries. While the federal government requires Medicare, under the traditional fee-for-service program, to reimburse health centers for their cost to deliver care to beneficiaries, the same requirement does not exist for Medicare+Choice plans. This bill would require Medicare, like the Medicaid program, to provide wrap- around payments covering the difference between the amount paid to the health center under the managed care arrangement and the amount the health center would have received under traditional Medicare. By making these four straightforward changes, we will be able to enhance the care that all Medicare beneficiaries receive, especially those living in underserved communities. And we will ensure that Medicare patients are not diluting federal funding intended to help the 41 million Americans that were uninsured in 2001.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Murray, which would ensure that women have access to preventive health services--services like contraceptive coverage, and emergency contraception--to try to reduce the overall need for abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in this country. Furthermore, I support this amendment because just as critical to ensuring that women have the right to plan their families in ensuring that uninsured pregnant women have access to the care they need to have healthy pregnancies and pre-natal care. The composition of this amendment provides women with the ability to have healthy families--which is what family planning is all about. Key to this effort is access to prescription contraceptives--including the most commonly used contraception by far, oral contraceptives. Access to these prescriptions are guaranteed under this amendment which includes legislation I have authored each year since 1997, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. I have led the fight for equitable coverage of contraceptives after having found out that in 1994, according to an Alan Guttmacher Institute, AGI, report, 49 percent of all large-group health plans and 49 percent of preferred provide organizations, PPOs, did not routinely cover all five methods of reversible contraceptives. That report led me to introducing EPICC for the first time in 1997. And while the statistics have improved there is more work to be done. According to a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation report, while 98 percent of employers offer prescription drug coverage in general, still only 64 percent offer coverage of oral contraceptives. Again, this category is the most popular of all prescription contraceptives. It's been 6 long years now since I first introduced EPICC, and according to an AGI report, in each of those 6 years women have spent over $350 per year on prescription oral contraceptives--for a total of over $2,100. Why? Because many insurance companies that already cover other prescription drugs do not cover prescription contraceptives. How can we continue to deny this fundamental coverage for prescription drugs that are a key component in women's reproductive health? And that's no exaggeration, either. Take for example the known health benefits of oral contraceptives, which have been in use for over 40 years now. First, the pill has been demonstrated to lower the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, and has been linked to reducing the risk of ovarion, endometrial and uterine cancers. And, the estrogen in the pill facilitates maintaining bone-density--a key component in the effort to fight osteoporosis and the debilitating and often life threatening results of bone fractures which are all too often faced by older women. But if that's not enough, just consider the importance and impact of prescription contraceptives in context with what we're debating on the Senate floor this week. No matter where you are on the issues . . . no matter what your political stripe--there isn't a U.S. Senator who wouldn't want to reduce the number of abortions in America. I would guarantee that. Knowing that approximately 50 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended--the highest of all industrial nations-- shouldn't that be a compelling reason to support this amendment, no matter which side of the abortion debate you're on? Indeed, I along with Senator Reid--who has long been a Democrat lead on my legislation--have long believed the EPICC not only makes sense in terms of the cost of contraceptives for women, but also as a means of bridging, at least in some small way, the pro-choice pro-life chasm by helping prevent unintended pregnancies and thereby also prevent abortions. Because, according to the Institute of Medicine Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, one of the reasons for the high rates of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. has been the failure of private health insurance to cover contraceptives--and half of these pregnancies end in abortion. Indeed, we know that there are 3 million unintended pregnancies every year in the United States. We also know that almost half of those pregnancies result from just the three million women who do not use contraceptives--while 39 million contraceptive users account for the other 53 percent of unintended pregnancies--most of which resulted from inconsistent or incorrect use. In other words, when used properly, contraceptives work. They prevent unintended pregnancies--we know that. Yet, there are opponents of my legislation, regardless of what we know about what access to contraceptives does for both the health of women and their children by having pregnancies better planned, and better spaced. Why? Well, it certainly shouldn't be cost. After all, a January 2001, OPM statement on EPICC-like coverage of federal employees under the FEHBP found no effect on premiums whatsoever since implementation in 1998. Let me repeat--no effect. In fact, some--like the Alan Guttmacher Institute--argue that improved access to and use of contraception nationwide would save insurers and society money by preventing unintended pregnancies, as insurers generally pay pregnancy-related medical costs--which can range anywhere from $5,000 to almost $10,000. Improved access to contraception would eliminate these costs and would reduce the costs to both employers and insurers. In 1999, the New York Business Group on Health released estimates calculated by Pharmacia and Upjohn Pharmaceuticals on the cost to employers of providing contraceptive coverage. Taking into account the cost of unintended pregnancies, Pharmacia and Upjohn estimated an overall savings of $40 per employee when contraception is a covered benefit. An estimate that is supported by a study that estimated that not covering contraceptives in employee health plans would actually cost employers 15-17 percent more than providing the coverage due to the other pregnancy related costs. Now, no one is saying that access to prescription contraceptives will solve the most vexing of social problems, but if access helps women plan their pregnancies, and includes in this planning assurances that they are in good health and that they will seek prenatal care, and that they have the financially stability to provide for their child--then, clearly, contraceptive coverage would significantly help improve the lives of millions of mothers and their future children. While the facts demonstrate that this amendment is something that every senator regardless of their position on abortion should support it as it will reduce the instance of abortion while improving the health of women and their future children, I must also say that Senator Murray's amendment--her prevention package--even in its totality, is not enough to fix the problems in the underlying bill offered by my friend, Senator Santorum, which would ban late term abortions without providing for any clear exception to protect the life or the physical health of the mother. This is completely contrary to the 22-year-old landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, States could ban abortions--as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. And there should be no doubt--the underlying legislation puts women's lives and health on the line. If we vote this week to send this legislation to the President without additional changes beyond the inclusion of this amendment--which beyond the guaranteed access to prescription contraceptives provides information about emergency contraceptives for women and doctors, access to emergency contraceptives for sexual assault victims and finally, access to health care for pregnant uninsured women--we will bear the burden of putting women's lives and health at risk by substituting the judgement of politicians for the judgement of medical doctors. And that just isn't right. The bottom line is, women should have control over their reproductive health--whether it be through access to contraceptives, access to health care when they are pregnant or through preserving the right to choose which should include the right to terminate a pregnancy post- viability if a doctor determines that continuance of the pregnancy would result in a grievous injury to the woman's physical health. After all, allowing women to decide what is in their best interests serves not only the woman's overall health, but their children's and their future children's health. This goal will be furthered by the amendment offered by Senator Murray and other amendments expected to be offered later this week by others which will ensure that we are following the guidelines laid out for us in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision ensuring that a woman's physical health is paramount in these decisions. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Bingaman and Rockefeller. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my state and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003'' provides States with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's degree, with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's ``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore,the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent,and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first two years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of colas time, study time, employment or work experience for at lest 24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second two years--for those enrolled in a four year program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including colas and study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academia institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of welfare. The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were recently captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one Las graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible. These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. And,while these women have been able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks tori the good will and the support of the people of Maine, Las has strained the state's budget. Giving States the option use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently--and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the federal program for too long.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Bingaman and Rockefeller. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my state and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003'' provides States with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's degree, with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's ``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore,the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent,and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first two years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of colas time, study time, employment or work experience for at lest 24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second two years--for those enrolled in a four year program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including colas and study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academia institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of welfare. The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were recently captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one Las graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible. These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. And,while these women have been able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks tori the good will and the support of the people of Maine, Las has strained the state's budget. Giving States the option use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently--and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the federal program for too long.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for introducing this very important measure for the women of this Nation. Today, we continue debate on the critical issue of allowing women to choose what is right for them, their health and their families. In 1973--26 years ago now--the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time a woman's right to choose. This landmark decision was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. It is clear that the underlying Santorum bill does not hold the rights of women paramount--instead it infringes on those rights in the most grievous of circumstances. Indeed, S. 3 undermines basic tenets of Roe v. Wade, which maintained that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability--the time at which it first becomes realistically possible for fetal life to be maintained outside the woman's body--States could ban abortions only if they also allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed their support for exceptions for health of the mother just three years ago. In Stenberg vs. Carhart, a case involving the constitutionality of Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban statute, the Supreme Court invalidated the Nebraska statute because it lacks an exception for the performance of the D & X, dilation and extraction, procedure when necessary to protect the health of the mother, and because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to have an abortion. This case was representative of 21 cases throughtout the Nation. Regrettably, however, Senator Santorum's legislation disregards both Supreme Court decisions by not providing an exception for the health of the mother and providing only a narrowly defined life exception. And let there be no mistake--I stand here today to reaffirm that no viable fetus should be aborted--by any method--unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the life or health of the mother, period. Senator Durbin's amendment, which I have cosponsored in the past and again this year, specifies that post-viability abortions would only be lawful if the physician performing the abortion and an independent physician certified in writing that continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. It mirrors laws already on the books in forty-one states, including my home state of Maine, which ban post-viability abortions while at the same time including life and health exceptions mandated by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, this amendment will lower the number of abortions because it bans all post-viability abortions. S. 3, in contrast, will not prevent a single abortion. Sadly, it will force women to choose another, potentially more harmful procedure. Is this what we really want? To put women's health and lives at risk? And shouldn't these most critical decisions be left to those with medical training--not politicians? The findings in S. 3 would have you believe that this procedure is never necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother and that in fact it poses significant health risks to a woman. This is simply not true. Let me explain why there must be a health exception for ``grievous physical injury'' in two circumstances: First, the language applies in those heart-wrenching cases where a wanted pregnancy seriously threatens the health of the mother. The language would allow a doctor in these tragic cases to perform an abortion because he or she believes it is critical to preserving the health of a woman facing: Peripartal cardiomyopathy, a form of cardiac failure which is often caused by the pregnancy, which can result in death or untreatable heart disease; pre-eclampsia, or high blood pressure which is caused by a pregnancy, which can result in kidney failure, stroke or death; and uterine ruptures which could result in infertility. Second, the language also applies when a woman has a life-threatening condition which requires life-saving treatment. It applies to those tragic cases, for example,when a woman needs chemotherapy when pregnant, so the families face the terrible choice of continuing the pregnancy or providing life-saving treatment. These conditions include: Breast cancer; lymphoma, which has a fifty percent mortality rate if untreated; and primary pulmonary hypertension, which has a 50 percent maternal mortality rate. Now, I ask my colleagues, who could seriously object under these circumstances? Mr. President, I believe this is a common sense approach to a serious problem for American women and a contentious issue for the United States Congress. I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Durbin, for championing this approach and I urge my colleagues--pro-life and pro- choice--to join together to support this amendment to ban all abortions after viability. Let's reduce the number of abortions in this country at the same time we protect the lives and health of women.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide revolutionary changes to the health insurance choices available for small businesses. This bill, ``The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003'' will give small businesses the same market-based advantages and leverage that large employers and unions currently enjoy to provide health insurance for their employees. One month ago, I convened my first hearing as Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to explore the crisis small businesses are currently facing in their attempts to find affordable health care for their employees. The reason I made this my first hearing was that whenever I spoke to small businesses this is the number one issue they wanted to discuss. Small businesses in my State are literally desperate for more health insurance options; some business owners even say this is keeping them awake at night. At the hearing small businesses from my home State of Maine made it clear that they have only one choice for their health care. Even when they band together in local purchasing pools, they are unable to attract any other insurance carriers to provide them with less expensive and more flexible options. Even though they have cut back on the coverage and increased the costs to the employees, they are still finding it almost impossible to provide health insurance to their employees. And as the costs to the employees increases, many employees find this too much to absorb, which leaves them uncovered and, therefore, increase the ranks of the employed but uninsured. Indeed, the Washington Post reported on February 28 that worries about rising health care costs registered higher in a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation than even concerns over the stock market or terrorist attacks. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were ``very worried'' that the cost of their health care or health insurance would increase compared to 22 percent who were ``very worried'' about losing their savings in the stock market, or 19 percent who were ``very worried'' about being a victim of a terrorist attack. With small businesses creating up to 75 percent of net new jobs in America and with a shocking 56 percent of the 41.2 million uninsured in this country already either working a full-time, full-year job or depending on one who does, we have an obligation to ensure that more of these individuals can receive insurance through their employers. So when the Kaiser 2002 Employer Health Benefits Survey reports that only 61 percent of all small businesses are offering health benefits--and that's down from 67 percent just three years ago--is there any question that we're headed in exactly the wrong direction? This is a crisis, and it's even worse in businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Of those, only 47 percent currently provide health insurance benefits, and the Department of Labor reports that only 24 percent of small businesses that employ ``low-wage'' workers offer health plans. The fact is, with more than two-thirds of all Americans relying on their employer for health insurance, we can't afford to continue the disturbing trend identified by the Kaiser Family Foundation, where monthly premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance on average rose 11 percent from 2000 to 2001, and then 12.7 percent from 2001 to 2002--the second straight year of double digit increases. As a result, 22 percent of all firms increased employee deductibles in 2002, and 32 percent told Kaiser they are likely to do so this year. The problem is all the more acute for small businesses. For those with fewer than 10 workers, the employer and employees together pay--on average--about 8 percent more in premiums than the amount paid by larger companies. And for all firms under 200 employees, 84 percent indicated to Kaiser that cost was an important factor in not offering health care. The result of all this isn't hard to predict. Businesses can and clearly are dropping health benefits. Others struggle onward in providing coverage, but only at the cost of the growth of the business, or offering packages with higher premiums, or a combination of both. If we can do something that will help more small businesses provide health insurance to their employees, then we can significantly reduce the number of those who are without health insurance in this country. The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 will improve access to affordable health care for small businesses by giving them the same advantages currently enjoyed by large employers and unions. The bill employs a very basic principle--that volume purchasing of insurance by small businesses will work as it does for any other commodity and for any large business or union that purchases health insurance coverage-- it will help reduce the cost. As President Bush has said, ``It makes no sense in America to isolate small businesses as little health care islands unto themselves. We must have association health plans.'' The Act will allow small businesses to pool together nationally, under the auspices of their bona fide associations, and either purchase their insurance from a provider, or self-insure in the same way that large employers and unions currently do. These association health plans, AHPS, would be monitored and regulated by the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration in the same way that more than 275,000 plans offered by large employers and unions are currently regulated. This agency is currently overseeing plans that cover 72 million people. The Department of Labor released a report last week that reveals high rates of compliance by group health plans with health care laws enacted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. More importantly, the report and the compliance project that is the subject of the report, are further evidence of the Labor Department's commitment and proven success in effectively monitoring health plans. The report establishes that the Department is prepared to oversee association health plans. Studies by the Small Business Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Congressional Budget Office have all found that these types of plans operate with between 13 and 30 percent lower administrative costs. These lower costs can then be translated into reducing costs to subscribers or providing more benefits. Another reason AHPs will be able to offer less expensive plans, and also greater flexibility, is because they will be exempt from the myriad State benefit regulations. Associations will be able to design their plans to meet the needs of their members and their employees. By administering one national plan, it will further reduce the administrative costs instead of trying to administer a plan subject to the mandates of each State. Even though the benefit mandates will not be in effect, associations will need to design their plans so that enough members participate in them to attract the necessary employees to make them work. This means that they will naturally provide a full range of benefits similar to what many States currently require. In many cases, the plans offered by large employers and unions, which are also exempt from the State benefit mandates, are the most generous plans available. People will often stay in those jobs specifically to keep their health care coverage. The Act would also provide extensive new protections to ensure that the health care coverage was there when employees need it. Associations sponsoring these plans would need to be established for at least three years for purposes other than providing health insurance--this is intended to prevent the current epidemic of fraud and abuse that is occurring through sham associations who take money from unsuspecting small businesses and then cease to exist when some files a claim. In addition, association health plans would be required to have sufficient funds in reserve, specific stop-loss insurances, indemnification insurance, and other funding and certification requirements to make sure the insurance coverage would be available when needed. None of these requirements apply to any of the plans currently regulated by the Department of Labor, either the large employer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, or the union plans under the Taft-Hartley Act. The approach of this bill is, I believe, a good one--but I also consider it a starting point. And in that light, I intend to work with all groups and interested parties that are committed to passing this bill so that we can improve this bill and finally provide small businesses with more health insurance options at lower costs. The current situation is simply unacceptable. Those who oppose this bill and believe the status quo only needs to be modified slightly are not paying attention--they are not listening to the millions of small businesses who are desperate for more choices, or the small employers who are unable to get health insurance at any cost. The time for stalling on providing relief for small businesses unable to get affordable health insurance is over. We must act now, and we must pass the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 to bring small businesses more choices and use the power of competition to bring them better options. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will provide revolutionary changes to the health insurance choices available for small businesses. This bill, ``The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003'' will give small businesses the same market-based advantages and leverage that large employers and unions currently enjoy to provide health insurance for their employees. One month ago, I convened my first hearing as Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to explore the crisis small businesses are currently facing in their attempts to find affordable health care for their employees. The reason I made this my first hearing was that whenever I spoke to small businesses this is the number one issue they wanted to discuss. Small businesses in my State are literally desperate for more health insurance options; some business owners even say this is keeping them awake at night. At the hearing small businesses from my home State of Maine made it clear that they have only one choice for their health care. Even when they band together in local purchasing pools, they are unable to attract any other insurance carriers to provide them with less expensive and more flexible options. Even though they have cut back on the coverage and increased the costs to the employees, they are still finding it almost impossible to provide health insurance to their employees. And as the costs to the employees increases, many employees find this too much to absorb, which leaves them uncovered and, therefore, increase the ranks of the employed but uninsured. Indeed, the Washington Post reported on February 28 that worries about rising health care costs registered higher in a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation than even concerns over the stock market or terrorist attacks. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents were ``very worried'' that the cost of their health care or health insurance would increase compared to 22 percent who were ``very worried'' about losing their savings in the stock market, or 19 percent who were ``very worried'' about being a victim of a terrorist attack. With small businesses creating up to 75 percent of net new jobs in America and with a shocking 56 percent of the 41.2 million uninsured in this country already either working a full-time, full-year job or depending on one who does, we have an obligation to ensure that more of these individuals can receive insurance through their employers. So when the Kaiser 2002 Employer Health Benefits Survey reports that only 61 percent of all small businesses are offering health benefits--and that's down from 67 percent just three years ago--is there any question that we're headed in exactly the wrong direction? This is a crisis, and it's even worse in businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Of those, only 47 percent currently provide health insurance benefits, and the Department of Labor reports that only 24 percent of small businesses that employ ``low-wage'' workers offer health plans. The fact is, with more than two-thirds of all Americans relying on their employer for health insurance, we can't afford to continue the disturbing trend identified by the Kaiser Family Foundation, where monthly premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance on average rose 11 percent from 2000 to 2001, and then 12.7 percent from 2001 to 2002--the second straight year of double digit increases. As a result, 22 percent of all firms increased employee deductibles in 2002, and 32 percent told Kaiser they are likely to do so this year. The problem is all the more acute for small businesses. For those with fewer than 10 workers, the employer and employees together pay--on average--about 8 percent more in premiums than the amount paid by larger companies. And for all firms under 200 employees, 84 percent indicated to Kaiser that cost was an important factor in not offering health care. The result of all this isn't hard to predict. Businesses can and clearly are dropping health benefits. Others struggle onward in providing coverage, but only at the cost of the growth of the business, or offering packages with higher premiums, or a combination of both. If we can do something that will help more small businesses provide health insurance to their employees, then we can significantly reduce the number of those who are without health insurance in this country. The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 will improve access to affordable health care for small businesses by giving them the same advantages currently enjoyed by large employers and unions. The bill employs a very basic principle--that volume purchasing of insurance by small businesses will work as it does for any other commodity and for any large business or union that purchases health insurance coverage-- it will help reduce the cost. As President Bush has said, ``It makes no sense in America to isolate small businesses as little health care islands unto themselves. We must have association health plans.'' The Act will allow small businesses to pool together nationally, under the auspices of their bona fide associations, and either purchase their insurance from a provider, or self-insure in the same way that large employers and unions currently do. These association health plans, AHPS, would be monitored and regulated by the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration in the same way that more than 275,000 plans offered by large employers and unions are currently regulated. This agency is currently overseeing plans that cover 72 million people. The Department of Labor released a report last week that reveals high rates of compliance by group health plans with health care laws enacted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. More importantly, the report and the compliance project that is the subject of the report, are further evidence of the Labor Department's commitment and proven success in effectively monitoring health plans. The report establishes that the Department is prepared to oversee association health plans. Studies by the Small Business Administration, the General Accounting Office, and the Congressional Budget Office have all found that these types of plans operate with between 13 and 30 percent lower administrative costs. These lower costs can then be translated into reducing costs to subscribers or providing more benefits. Another reason AHPs will be able to offer less expensive plans, and also greater flexibility, is because they will be exempt from the myriad State benefit regulations. Associations will be able to design their plans to meet the needs of their members and their employees. By administering one national plan, it will further reduce the administrative costs instead of trying to administer a plan subject to the mandates of each State. Even though the benefit mandates will not be in effect, associations will need to design their plans so that enough members participate in them to attract the necessary employees to make them work. This means that they will naturally provide a full range of benefits similar to what many States currently require. In many cases, the plans offered by large employers and unions, which are also exempt from the State benefit mandates, are the most generous plans available. People will often stay in those jobs specifically to keep their health care coverage. The Act would also provide extensive new protections to ensure that the health care coverage was there when employees need it. Associations sponsoring these plans would need to be established for at least three years for purposes other than providing health insurance--this is intended to prevent the current epidemic of fraud and abuse that is occurring through sham associations who take money from unsuspecting small businesses and then cease to exist when some files a claim. In addition, association health plans would be required to have sufficient funds in reserve, specific stop-loss insurances, indemnification insurance, and other funding and certification requirements to make sure the insurance coverage would be available when needed. None of these requirements apply to any of the plans currently regulated by the Department of Labor, either the large employer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, or the union plans under the Taft-Hartley Act. The approach of this bill is, I believe, a good one--but I also consider it a starting point. And in that light, I intend to work with all groups and interested parties that are committed to passing this bill so that we can improve this bill and finally provide small businesses with more health insurance options at lower costs. The current situation is simply unacceptable. Those who oppose this bill and believe the status quo only needs to be modified slightly are not paying attention--they are not listening to the millions of small businesses who are desperate for more choices, or the small employers who are unable to get health insurance at any cost. The time for stalling on providing relief for small businesses unable to get affordable health insurance is over. We must act now, and we must pass the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 to bring small businesses more choices and use the power of competition to bring them better options. I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003 and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the EFFECT Act, the Energy Efficiency through Certified Technologies Act, which has bipartisan support as I am pleased to be joined by cosponsors Senator Feinstein of California, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Senator Reid of Nevada. As a member of the Finance Committee, I strongly believe that we must develop responsible tax credit incentive policies that will increase the efficiencies of the homes we build and live in and the buildings in which we work. We did an admirable job last year providing sound tax incentives in the omnibus energy bill, and it is regrettable that bill did not get out of conference and these incentives are not available for our consumers to use. That is especially true as the storm clouds gather in the Middle East and the price of oil, for instance, reaches $40 a barrel. This bill provides tax incentives for advanced levels of energy efficiency and peak power saving technologies in the buildings in which we live, work, and learn. Buildings consume some 35 percent of energy nationwide and are responsible for the emissions of a comparable percentage of pollution; importantly, they account for more than one- half of the Nation's energy costs. Incentives provided through the tax system are necessary to complement existing energy efficiency policies at the Federal and State levels. The issue is, incentive programs already being operated cannot provide multiyear commitments of money. Such commitments are absolutely vital in inducing industries to invest in these technologies. The 1- year commitments that are offered by many current programs are insufficient to promote dramatic new energy efficiency technologies even when they are very cost effective. Our goal in introducing the legislation is to accelerate the commercial success of technologies that are already cost effective but are currently impeded by market barriers. These barriers can be overcome by financial incentives. Savings of up to 50 percent add up to reductions in climate pollution emissions of 65 million metric tons of carbon annually after 10 years, accompanied by consumer energy bill reductions of $30 billion per year and the creation of almost 500,000 new jobs as well as stimulation in the growth of small businesses. The bill provides for a 6-year--and, in some cases, 3-year--sunset for the incentive. Incentives are provided for commercial buildings both new and remodeled, including schools and other public buildings and rental housing; for air-conditioning, heating, and water heating equipment which can reduce peak power demand quickly; for new homes and the retrofitting of existing homes; and for solar electricity. The incentives provided for in this legislation are based on three principles: One, independent third-party certification is required so that energy savings are certified and the Government is getting real energy savings for the tax money invested; two, the incentives are workable, not bureaucratic, and are built on programs that have already been shown to work with minimal bureaucratic intervention or effort; and, three, the incentives sunset in order to provide a transition to a market system that already promotes energy efficiency. The incentives are performance-based so that the consumer and producer have the motivation to reduce costs and to introduce new technologies to achieve energy goals in more cost-effective ways than existing technologies. The documentation required for certification has value in the marketplace in allowing property markets to reflect enhanced property values based on energy efficiency. Many American homes, for instance, were built years before energy- efficient technologies were developed. This is certainly true in an older State such as my home State of Maine and an incentive for a retrofit such as simply putting in certifiable high-energy-efficient doors and windows, such a low-emissivity glass, will save a great deal of energy loss because of the huge amount of seepage that now occurs through the existing windows. This bill will also leverage cost-effective investments in saving peak powers as well as energy--110,000 megawatts after 10 years. It is one of the few public policies that can be enacted that can help avert peak power shortages in the next 4 or 5 years. It will lower energy costs for consumers and businesses and promote competition and innovation. The bottom line is, we have the opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems. Solutions exist in available technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. I look forward to working with the chairmen of the Finance Committee, as I did last year, to mark up tax incentives that reflect the provisions of this legislation, and with the Energy Committee chairmen to further our Nation's energy efficiency goals that will save on our energy usage--and this will be reflected in the energy bills consumers must pay--and thus allow us to use less electricity, and less oil and natural gas to produce that energy. I am pleased to be joined by Senators representing States throughout the country and urge others to seriously consider this legislation and join us in working towards our goal for achieving greater energy efficiency in the near future.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Collins, to introduce legislation, the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, to create a safety pilot program for commercial trucks. This bill would authorize a safety demonstration program in my home State of Maine that could be a model for other States. I have been working closely with the Maine Department of Transportation, communities in my State, and others to address statewide concerns about the existing Federal interstate truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds. I believe that safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and highways, and I am very concerned that the existing interstate weight limit has the perverse impact of forcing commercial trucks onto State and local secondary roads that were never designed to handle heavy commercial trucks safely. We are talking about narrow roads, lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones. I have been working to address this concern for many years. During the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a waiver from Federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike, the 100-mile section of Maine's interstate in the southern portion of the State, and it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also shared my concerns with the Department of Transportation and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to urge them to work with me in an effort to address this challenge. In addition, the Main Department of Transportation is in the process of conducting a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes of expanding this study, which will focus on the safety impact of higher limits, infrastructure issues, air quality issues, and economic issues as well, in order to secure the data necessary to ensure that commercial trucks operate in the safest possible manner. Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 pounds, on the Interstate System, but the fact is there are a myriad of exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads don't. The legislation I am submitting today would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate System within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in this issue, safety advocates, truckers, States, and communities, to address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the EFFECT Act, the Energy Efficiency through Certified Technologies Act, which has bipartisan support as I am pleased to be joined by cosponsors Senator Feinstein of California, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Senator Reid of Nevada. As a member of the Finance Committee, I strongly believe that we must develop responsible tax credit incentive policies that will increase the efficiencies of the homes we build and live in and the buildings in which we work. We did an admirable job last year providing sound tax incentives in the omnibus energy bill, and it is regrettable that bill did not get out of conference and these incentives are not available for our consumers to use. That is especially true as the storm clouds gather in the Middle East and the price of oil, for instance, reaches $40 a barrel. This bill provides tax incentives for advanced levels of energy efficiency and peak power saving technologies in the buildings in which we live, work, and learn. Buildings consume some 35 percent of energy nationwide and are responsible for the emissions of a comparable percentage of pollution; importantly, they account for more than one- half of the Nation's energy costs. Incentives provided through the tax system are necessary to complement existing energy efficiency policies at the Federal and State levels. The issue is, incentive programs already being operated cannot provide multiyear commitments of money. Such commitments are absolutely vital in inducing industries to invest in these technologies. The 1- year commitments that are offered by many current programs are insufficient to promote dramatic new energy efficiency technologies even when they are very cost effective. Our goal in introducing the legislation is to accelerate the commercial success of technologies that are already cost effective but are currently impeded by market barriers. These barriers can be overcome by financial incentives. Savings of up to 50 percent add up to reductions in climate pollution emissions of 65 million metric tons of carbon annually after 10 years, accompanied by consumer energy bill reductions of $30 billion per year and the creation of almost 500,000 new jobs as well as stimulation in the growth of small businesses. The bill provides for a 6-year--and, in some cases, 3-year--sunset for the incentive. Incentives are provided for commercial buildings both new and remodeled, including schools and other public buildings and rental housing; for air-conditioning, heating, and water heating equipment which can reduce peak power demand quickly; for new homes and the retrofitting of existing homes; and for solar electricity. The incentives provided for in this legislation are based on three principles: One, independent third-party certification is required so that energy savings are certified and the Government is getting real energy savings for the tax money invested; two, the incentives are workable, not bureaucratic, and are built on programs that have already been shown to work with minimal bureaucratic intervention or effort; and, three, the incentives sunset in order to provide a transition to a market system that already promotes energy efficiency. The incentives are performance-based so that the consumer and producer have the motivation to reduce costs and to introduce new technologies to achieve energy goals in more cost-effective ways than existing technologies. The documentation required for certification has value in the marketplace in allowing property markets to reflect enhanced property values based on energy efficiency. Many American homes, for instance, were built years before energy- efficient technologies were developed. This is certainly true in an older State such as my home State of Maine and an incentive for a retrofit such as simply putting in certifiable high-energy-efficient doors and windows, such a low-emissivity glass, will save a great deal of energy loss because of the huge amount of seepage that now occurs through the existing windows. This bill will also leverage cost-effective investments in saving peak powers as well as energy--110,000 megawatts after 10 years. It is one of the few public policies that can be enacted that can help avert peak power shortages in the next 4 or 5 years. It will lower energy costs for consumers and businesses and promote competition and innovation. The bottom line is, we have the opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems. Solutions exist in available technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. I look forward to working with the chairmen of the Finance Committee, as I did last year, to mark up tax incentives that reflect the provisions of this legislation, and with the Energy Committee chairmen to further our Nation's energy efficiency goals that will save on our energy usage--and this will be reflected in the energy bills consumers must pay--and thus allow us to use less electricity, and less oil and natural gas to produce that energy. I am pleased to be joined by Senators representing States throughout the country and urge others to seriously consider this legislation and join us in working towards our goal for achieving greater energy efficiency in the near future.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Collins, to introduce legislation, the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, to create a safety pilot program for commercial trucks. This bill would authorize a safety demonstration program in my home State of Maine that could be a model for other States. I have been working closely with the Maine Department of Transportation, communities in my State, and others to address statewide concerns about the existing Federal interstate truck weight limit of 80,000 pounds. I believe that safety must be the No. 1 priority on our roads and highways, and I am very concerned that the existing interstate weight limit has the perverse impact of forcing commercial trucks onto State and local secondary roads that were never designed to handle heavy commercial trucks safely. We are talking about narrow roads, lanes, and rotaries, with frequent pedestrian crossings and school zones. I have been working to address this concern for many years. During the 105th Congress, for example, I authored a provision providing a waiver from Federal weight limits on the Maine Turnpike, the 100-mile section of Maine's interstate in the southern portion of the State, and it was signed into law as part of TEA-21. I have also shared my concerns with the Department of Transportation and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to urge them to work with me in an effort to address this challenge. In addition, the Main Department of Transportation is in the process of conducting a study of the truck weight limit waiver on the Maine Turnpike, and I have been working closely with the State in the hopes of expanding this study, which will focus on the safety impact of higher limits, infrastructure issues, air quality issues, and economic issues as well, in order to secure the data necessary to ensure that commercial trucks operate in the safest possible manner. Federal law attempts to provide uniform truck weight limits, 80,000 pounds, on the Interstate System, but the fact is there are a myriad of exemptions and grandfathering provisions. Furthermore, interstate highways have safety features specifically designed for heavy truck traffic, whereas the narrow, winding State and local roads don't. The legislation I am submitting today would simply direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a 3-year pilot program to improve commercial motor vehicle safety in the State of Maine. Specifically, the measure would direct the Secretary, during this period, to waive Federal vehicle weight limitations on certain commercial vehicles weighing over 80,000 pounds using the Interstate System within Maine, permitting the State to set the weight limit. In addition, it would provide for the waiver to become permanent unless the Secretary determines it has resulted in an adverse impact on highway safety. I believe this is a measured, responsible approach to a very serious public safety issue. I hope to work with all of those with a stake in this issue, safety advocates, truckers, States, and communities, to address this matter in the most effective possible way, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as the lead cosponsor of Senator Leahy's Omnibus Mercury Reduction Act of 2003 to ask support for our continued efforts to dramatically reduce mercury pollution that has been shown to pose serious health risks, especially for pregnant women, and can cause irreversible nerve damage in young children. This legislation responds to the Environmental Protection Agency's just released report on ``America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses'', which states that EPA remains concerned about children potentially exposed to mercury in the womb. Mercury is among the least-controlled and most dangerous toxins threatening pregnant women and children from mercury exposure through the air and water in America today, and we need to continue the fight to pass a national approach to better control its use. Because mercury pollution knows no State borders, a national initiative is necessary to control it and better understand its health effects. The Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 2003 would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to impose new restrictions on mercury emissions by utility power plants, coal and oil-fired commercial boilers, solid waste incinerators, and other sources of emissions. According to the EPA, an estimated 30 tons of mercury emissions per year come from municipal waste combustors because of the presence of mercury-containing items such as fluorescent lamps, fever thermometers, thermostats, and switches. Our bill requires utility power plants and commercial boilers to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent in five years, and requires the EPA to publish a list of mercury-containing items that need to be separated and removed from the waste streams that feed solid waste management facilities. The most effective way to reduce mercury emissions from incinerators is to reduce the volume of mercury- containing items before they reach the incinerator. The bill would also expand research on the effects of mercury on sensitive subpopulations such as pregnant women and children, and it directs the EPA to work with the States to improve the quality and dissemination of State fish consumption advisories. Even in Maine, where great efforts have been made to preserve clean air and water, mercury arrives as an unseen threat, carried in the air from hundreds of miles away and deposited in our lakes, rivers and coastal regions through rain and snowfall. This bill complements the steps Maine has taken to reduce mercury emissions, and by addressing what happens outside our borders, it also can ensure that Maine's actions will not be in vain. Mercury is a dangerous toxin present in coal, which is burned to produce 65 percent of the nation's electricity, other fossil fuels, and various household and industrial products. When mercury is burned, fine particles are released and carried by precipitation back to earth, contaminating water bodies, fish, and wildlife, and ultimately posing a threat to humans. Nationwide, 39 States have issued warnings about eating certain fish in more than 50,000 bodies of water, up from 27 States in 1993. While Maine ranks 49th among the least-polluting States in terms of mercury emissions, nearly all of its lakes are under health advisories due to airborne mercury pollution transported in air currents from other States. Because mercury is an element and cannot be destroyed, it cycles endlessly through the environment, necessitating control of the toxin at the source. With the technology and resources available, we can and must find creative ways to substantially reduce mercury pollution, and this bill kicks that process into gear and will go a very long way toward removing this harmful toxin as a threat to human health and the environment. In partnership with the Omnibus mercury bill, I am also a cosponsor of Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act that calls for a 90 percent reduction of mercury from coal burning power plants by 2008. By 2009, the Jeffords bill also dramatically cuts aggregate power plant emissions of the three other major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides, NOx, the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide, SO2, that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; and carbon dioxide, CO2, the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate variabilities, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOx, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost effective with available technology. I hope to work with my colleagues in the 108th Congress to see that provisions in these two bills are fully debated and policy is passed to protect our environment and our population from the ravages of these major air pollutants. We must move forward for the health of the unborn, the American public and the entire planet.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today as the lead cosponsor of Senator Leahy's Omnibus Mercury Reduction Act of 2003 to ask support for our continued efforts to dramatically reduce mercury pollution that has been shown to pose serious health risks, especially for pregnant women, and can cause irreversible nerve damage in young children. This legislation responds to the Environmental Protection Agency's just released report on ``America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses'', which states that EPA remains concerned about children potentially exposed to mercury in the womb. Mercury is among the least-controlled and most dangerous toxins threatening pregnant women and children from mercury exposure through the air and water in America today, and we need to continue the fight to pass a national approach to better control its use. Because mercury pollution knows no State borders, a national initiative is necessary to control it and better understand its health effects. The Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 2003 would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to impose new restrictions on mercury emissions by utility power plants, coal and oil-fired commercial boilers, solid waste incinerators, and other sources of emissions. According to the EPA, an estimated 30 tons of mercury emissions per year come from municipal waste combustors because of the presence of mercury-containing items such as fluorescent lamps, fever thermometers, thermostats, and switches. Our bill requires utility power plants and commercial boilers to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent in five years, and requires the EPA to publish a list of mercury-containing items that need to be separated and removed from the waste streams that feed solid waste management facilities. The most effective way to reduce mercury emissions from incinerators is to reduce the volume of mercury- containing items before they reach the incinerator. The bill would also expand research on the effects of mercury on sensitive subpopulations such as pregnant women and children, and it directs the EPA to work with the States to improve the quality and dissemination of State fish consumption advisories. Even in Maine, where great efforts have been made to preserve clean air and water, mercury arrives as an unseen threat, carried in the air from hundreds of miles away and deposited in our lakes, rivers and coastal regions through rain and snowfall. This bill complements the steps Maine has taken to reduce mercury emissions, and by addressing what happens outside our borders, it also can ensure that Maine's actions will not be in vain. Mercury is a dangerous toxin present in coal, which is burned to produce 65 percent of the nation's electricity, other fossil fuels, and various household and industrial products. When mercury is burned, fine particles are released and carried by precipitation back to earth, contaminating water bodies, fish, and wildlife, and ultimately posing a threat to humans. Nationwide, 39 States have issued warnings about eating certain fish in more than 50,000 bodies of water, up from 27 States in 1993. While Maine ranks 49th among the least-polluting States in terms of mercury emissions, nearly all of its lakes are under health advisories due to airborne mercury pollution transported in air currents from other States. Because mercury is an element and cannot be destroyed, it cycles endlessly through the environment, necessitating control of the toxin at the source. With the technology and resources available, we can and must find creative ways to substantially reduce mercury pollution, and this bill kicks that process into gear and will go a very long way toward removing this harmful toxin as a threat to human health and the environment. In partnership with the Omnibus mercury bill, I am also a cosponsor of Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act that calls for a 90 percent reduction of mercury from coal burning power plants by 2008. By 2009, the Jeffords bill also dramatically cuts aggregate power plant emissions of the three other major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides, NOx, the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide, SO2, that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; and carbon dioxide, CO2, the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate variabilities, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOx, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost effective with available technology. I hope to work with my colleagues in the 108th Congress to see that provisions in these two bills are fully debated and policy is passed to protect our environment and our population from the ravages of these major air pollutants. We must move forward for the health of the unborn, the American public and the entire planet.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an injustice being visited upon the survivors of our servicemembers killed in action and military retirees under the current military Survivor's Benefit Plan, or SBP. As the program currently operates, the widows or widowers of those who have ``borne the battle'' receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the servicemember's retirement pay. That is, until they turn 62. At that time, under current law, a surviving spouse's SBP benefits must be reduced either by a Social Security offset, or a reduction in payments to 35 percent of retired pay--a drop of almost 40 percent--simply because they have reached the age of 62. For example, let's take the widow of a Navy chief petty officer or E- 7 who had served 20 years before retiring. Before she reaches 62, this widow will receive $771 per month, but on her 62nd birthday, that benefit drops to only $491 per month--a loss of $3,360 per year. For a retired O-5, say a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, the widow's benefit would drop by $6,960 a year as soon as she turns 62. Some birthday gift. But the inequities don't stop there. For example, the military Survivor Benefit Plan does not measure up to the Federal Survivor Benefit Plan in terms of benefits paid to survivors. Survivors of Federal civilian retirees under the original Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent of their spouse's retired pay for life--with no drop in benefits at age 62. Under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System, survivors still receive 50 percent of retired pay for life, again with no drop at age 62. Yet another reason that we should adopt this legislation is that members of the military pay more than their share of Survivor Benefit Plan program costs, as compared to their Federal civilian counterparts. Originally, the Congress intended the government to subsidize 40 percent of the cost of military Survivor Benefit Plan premiums--similar to the government's contribution to the Federal civilian plan. Over the last several decades, however, there has been a significant decline in the government's cost share, and Department of Defense actuaries advise that the government subsidy is now down to less than 17 percent. This means that military retirees are now paying more than 83 percent of program costs from their retired pay versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this to the Federal civilian SBP, which has a 52 percent cost share for those under the Civil Service Retirement System and a 67 percent cost share for those employees, including many of our own staff, under the Federal Employees Retirement System. While it is true that there are differences between the civilian and military premium costs, with Federal civilians paying more, it is also true that military retirees generally retire earlier than their Federal civilian counterparts, and as a result, pay premiums for many more years. This legislation is intended to raise, over a five year period, the percentage of the retirement annuity received by the survivor from 35 percent to 55 percent after age 62. The first year, 2004, will be an open season to allow new enrollees to sign up for the program in order to reduce retired pay outlays by increasing deductions of SBP premiums from retired pay, thus offsetting part of the cost of the survivor benefit increase. Beginning on Oct. 1, 2004, the second year, the age-62 SBP annuity would increase to 40 percent of retired pay, followed by an additional increase to 45 percent in 2005, 50 percent in 2006 and 55 percent in 2007 after which all survivors would receive the 55 percent of the annuity. Once again, I ask my colleagues to support our Nation's military widows and widowers. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, we included a Sense of the Congress on increasing the military SBP annuity. This year, we have a chance to carry out this intent by enacting this important measure, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an injustice being visited upon the survivors of our servicemembers killed in action and military retirees under the current military Survivor's Benefit Plan, or SBP. As the program currently operates, the widows or widowers of those who have ``borne the battle'' receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of the servicemember's retirement pay. That is, until they turn 62. At that time, under current law, a surviving spouse's SBP benefits must be reduced either by a Social Security offset, or a reduction in payments to 35 percent of retired pay--a drop of almost 40 percent--simply because they have reached the age of 62. For example, let's take the widow of a Navy chief petty officer or E- 7 who had served 20 years before retiring. Before she reaches 62, this widow will receive $771 per month, but on her 62nd birthday, that benefit drops to only $491 per month--a loss of $3,360 per year. For a retired O-5, say a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, the widow's benefit would drop by $6,960 a year as soon as she turns 62. Some birthday gift. But the inequities don't stop there. For example, the military Survivor Benefit Plan does not measure up to the Federal Survivor Benefit Plan in terms of benefits paid to survivors. Survivors of Federal civilian retirees under the original Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent of their spouse's retired pay for life--with no drop in benefits at age 62. Under the newer Federal Employee Retirement System, survivors still receive 50 percent of retired pay for life, again with no drop at age 62. Yet another reason that we should adopt this legislation is that members of the military pay more than their share of Survivor Benefit Plan program costs, as compared to their Federal civilian counterparts. Originally, the Congress intended the government to subsidize 40 percent of the cost of military Survivor Benefit Plan premiums--similar to the government's contribution to the Federal civilian plan. Over the last several decades, however, there has been a significant decline in the government's cost share, and Department of Defense actuaries advise that the government subsidy is now down to less than 17 percent. This means that military retirees are now paying more than 83 percent of program costs from their retired pay versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this to the Federal civilian SBP, which has a 52 percent cost share for those under the Civil Service Retirement System and a 67 percent cost share for those employees, including many of our own staff, under the Federal Employees Retirement System. While it is true that there are differences between the civilian and military premium costs, with Federal civilians paying more, it is also true that military retirees generally retire earlier than their Federal civilian counterparts, and as a result, pay premiums for many more years. This legislation is intended to raise, over a five year period, the percentage of the retirement annuity received by the survivor from 35 percent to 55 percent after age 62. The first year, 2004, will be an open season to allow new enrollees to sign up for the program in order to reduce retired pay outlays by increasing deductions of SBP premiums from retired pay, thus offsetting part of the cost of the survivor benefit increase. Beginning on Oct. 1, 2004, the second year, the age-62 SBP annuity would increase to 40 percent of retired pay, followed by an additional increase to 45 percent in 2005, 50 percent in 2006 and 55 percent in 2007 after which all survivors would receive the 55 percent of the annuity. Once again, I ask my colleagues to support our Nation's military widows and widowers. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, we included a Sense of the Congress on increasing the military SBP annuity. This year, we have a chance to carry out this intent by enacting this important measure, and I ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, pursuant to Rule 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to be printed in the Congressional Record. The Committee rules for the 108th Congress are identical to the rules adopted by the Committee for the 107th Congress.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' bill--as I did in the 106th and 107th Congresses--as I am dedicated to reducing power plant emissions that cause some of the Nation's--and Maine's--most serious public health and environmental problems. For too many years, coal-burning power plants exempt from emissions standards under the Clean Air Act have created massive pollution problems for the Northeast because whatever spews out of their smokestacks in the Midwest, blows into the Northeast, including my State of Maine, giving it the dubious distinction of being at the ``end of the tailpipe'', so to speak. The Jeffords' legislation calls for reductions of power plant emissions for pollutants that cause smog, soot, respiratory disease; acid rain that kills our forests; mercury that contaminates our lakes, rivers and streams; and climate variabilities that cause severe shifts in our weather patterns. Maine currently leads the Nation in asthma cases per capita, which is not a surprise, but which it can do little about when nearly 80 percent of the State's dirty air is not of their own making but is transported by winds blowing in from the Midwest and Southeast. The bill will dramatically cut aggregate power plant emissions by 2009 of the four major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides NOX, the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide, SO2, that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; mercury, Hg, which poisons our lakes and rivers, causing fish to be unfit for human consumption, through a 90 percent reduction by 2008; and carbon dioxide, CO2, the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate variabilities, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOX, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost effective with available technology. The bill will also eliminate the outdated coal-burning power plants that were grandfathered in the Clean Air Act unless they apply the best available pollution control technology by their 40th birthday or 2014, whichever is later. The thinking for the exemption in the Clean Air Act was based, at the time, on the assumption that the plants would not stay on line much longer. However, as energy has gotten more expensive, companies are keeping these older, dirtier plants up and running. Furthermore, just as the Clean Air Act already provides tradable allowances for sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, the Jeffords' legislation also allows for tradable allowances to control emissions for three other pollutants--NOX, SOX, CO2,--by using market-oriented mechanisms to meet emissions reduction requirements. The tradable allowances would be distributed to five main categories, including 63 percent or more to households; six percent for transition assistance to affected communities and industries, which will decline over time; up to 20 percent to renewable energy generation, efficiency projects and clean energy sources, based on avoided pollution; 10 percent to existing electric generating facilities based on 2000 output; and up to 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide allowances for biological and geological carbon sequestration. Of note, trading will not be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment. I realize that the Administration's Clear Skies Initiative does not address carbon dioxide as a pollutant nor does it address emissions reductions for CO2. While I recognize that the pollutants listed under the Clear Air Act have been to achieve healthier air for humans by cutting back on smog and soot, and also for mercury contamination, I believe it is long past due that carbon dioxide be recognized as a pollutant that is harming the health of the planet. I am supporting the goal of CO2 emissions reduction in the Jeffords' bill in the hopes that the bill will be a rallying point to further the debate for reducing CO2 and at the same time, get our air cleaner on a quicker timeframe. In particular, Congress needs to develop a market mechanism approach for CO2 emissions trading--such as we now have for acid rain--to allow U.S. industries the flexibility and certainty to reduce CO2 emissions without the threat of higher energy production costs in the future that will be passed on to the consumer. I will continue to work with my colleagues, the White House and representatives from various industry groups, and environmental organizations to achieve this goal. The bottom line is that we have the opportunity to raise the bar for cleaner domestic energy production in an economically effective manner. Solutions exist in available and developing technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people who want a cleaner and healthier environment, including those in Maine who want to ensure that the State's pristine lakes and coast will remain clean and our forests healthy for generations to come. States like Maine are leading the way in trying to reduce CO2 emissions--and the Jeffords' legislation sends a powerful message to those who would pollute our air: your days are numbered. I am optimistic that the Congress can come together with the President, industry and all those who want cleaner, healthier air to create a cohesive policy that is best suited for our nation, so I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords' legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' bill--as I did in the 106th and 107th Congresses--as I am dedicated to reducing power plant emissions that cause some of the Nation's--and Maine's--most serious public health and environmental problems. For too many years, coal-burning power plants exempt from emissions standards under the Clean Air Act have created massive pollution problems for the Northeast because whatever spews out of their smokestacks in the Midwest, blows into the Northeast, including my State of Maine, giving it the dubious distinction of being at the ``end of the tailpipe'', so to speak. The Jeffords' legislation calls for reductions of power plant emissions for pollutants that cause smog, soot, respiratory disease; acid rain that kills our forests; mercury that contaminates our lakes, rivers and streams; and climate variabilities that cause severe shifts in our weather patterns. Maine currently leads the Nation in asthma cases per capita, which is not a surprise, but which it can do little about when nearly 80 percent of the State's dirty air is not of their own making but is transported by winds blowing in from the Midwest and Southeast. The bill will dramatically cut aggregate power plant emissions by 2009 of the four major power plant pollutants: nitrogen oxides NOX, the primary cause of smog, by 71 percent from 2000 levels; sulfur dioxide, SO2, that causes acid rain and respiratory disease, by 81 percent from 2000 levels; mercury, Hg, which poisons our lakes and rivers, causing fish to be unfit for human consumption, through a 90 percent reduction by 2008; and carbon dioxide, CO2, the greenhouse gas most directly linked to global climate variabilities, by 21 percent from 2000 levels. Of note, the NOX, SO2, and mercury reductions are set at levels that are known to be cost effective with available technology. The bill will also eliminate the outdated coal-burning power plants that were grandfathered in the Clean Air Act unless they apply the best available pollution control technology by their 40th birthday or 2014, whichever is later. The thinking for the exemption in the Clean Air Act was based, at the time, on the assumption that the plants would not stay on line much longer. However, as energy has gotten more expensive, companies are keeping these older, dirtier plants up and running. Furthermore, just as the Clean Air Act already provides tradable allowances for sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain, the Jeffords' legislation also allows for tradable allowances to control emissions for three other pollutants--NOX, SOX, CO2,--by using market-oriented mechanisms to meet emissions reduction requirements. The tradable allowances would be distributed to five main categories, including 63 percent or more to households; six percent for transition assistance to affected communities and industries, which will decline over time; up to 20 percent to renewable energy generation, efficiency projects and clean energy sources, based on avoided pollution; 10 percent to existing electric generating facilities based on 2000 output; and up to 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide allowances for biological and geological carbon sequestration. Of note, trading will not be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment. I realize that the Administration's Clear Skies Initiative does not address carbon dioxide as a pollutant nor does it address emissions reductions for CO2. While I recognize that the pollutants listed under the Clear Air Act have been to achieve healthier air for humans by cutting back on smog and soot, and also for mercury contamination, I believe it is long past due that carbon dioxide be recognized as a pollutant that is harming the health of the planet. I am supporting the goal of CO2 emissions reduction in the Jeffords' bill in the hopes that the bill will be a rallying point to further the debate for reducing CO2 and at the same time, get our air cleaner on a quicker timeframe. In particular, Congress needs to develop a market mechanism approach for CO2 emissions trading--such as we now have for acid rain--to allow U.S. industries the flexibility and certainty to reduce CO2 emissions without the threat of higher energy production costs in the future that will be passed on to the consumer. I will continue to work with my colleagues, the White House and representatives from various industry groups, and environmental organizations to achieve this goal. The bottom line is that we have the opportunity to raise the bar for cleaner domestic energy production in an economically effective manner. Solutions exist in available and developing technologies, and most of all in the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people who want a cleaner and healthier environment, including those in Maine who want to ensure that the State's pristine lakes and coast will remain clean and our forests healthy for generations to come. States like Maine are leading the way in trying to reduce CO2 emissions--and the Jeffords' legislation sends a powerful message to those who would pollute our air: your days are numbered. I am optimistic that the Congress can come together with the President, industry and all those who want cleaner, healthier air to create a cohesive policy that is best suited for our nation, so I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords' legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in introducing our legislation restoring funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I would like to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me to secure the deal that has led to the introduction of this legislation and ultimately its signature into law. SCHIP is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for America's children. During debate over the Omnibus appropriations bill, I worked with my colleagues to secure an agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired, or soon to expire, SCHIP funding. This compromise has the support of our Nation's governors and will ensure that this funding remains in the program and continues to provide children with access to the care that is vital to their healthy development. I especially appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to work with us during the omnibus debate to develop the agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important policy, the first step being introduction of this bill. I believe the agreement that I was able to craft with my colleagues is the most appropriate way to restore the SCHIP funding. Because the budget resolution adopted by the House of Representatives does not include adequate budget authority to restore this funding, the floor amendment that I planned to offer to the omnibus appropriations bill would have been subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given that this point of order would have laid against the provision, the likelihood that the House would have stripped the provision during conference was great. In light of those circumstances, I believe that the agreement I negotiated is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding is restored. The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the amendment that filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore SCHIP funding, provide the support of the Majority Leader and Chairmen Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes to remove the budget hurdles that have prevented this legislation from being enacted. Specifically, Senator Nickles has provided his commitment to reallocate through the Fiscal Year 04 budget process additional budget authority for SCHIP in Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04. I am confident that under Senator Nickles' leadership, the budget process will move smoothly and expeditiously and that we will be able to speed the adoption of this proposal in both the Senate and House and Representatives. Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed that as soon as the necessary budget adjustments are made he will move this bill through his committee. Again, under his strong leadership I am confident that we will get this done. Finally, Majority Leader Frist has agreed to place the legislation on the Senate calendar as soon as it is reported from the Finance Committee. I might add that while I am aware that this agreement was forged in the Senate, the underlying policy contained in this bill was developed through a bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and Baucus last fall. I hope that the House of Representatives will work with us to make the necessary changes to the Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04 budget allocations and to see this legislation enacted into law in a timely manner. How it works is this, once passed, our legislation will restore $2.7 billion in SCHIP funding that has either reverted to the treasury or is scheduled to revert to HHS for redistribution. On October 1, 2002, $1.2 billion reverted to the treasury in unspent SCHIP funding from 1998 and 1999. If we do not recapture this funding, it will be lost to the program. Our agreement allows the states to reclaim this unspent money and provides until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it on health insurance provided by SCHIP. The policy contained in this legislation also strikes a compromise between States that have spent all of their 2000 and 2001 allotments, and those that have not, by dividing the funding evenly between them. Those States that have not spent all of their allocations will be able to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States will receive additional allotments from the redistributed funding. It also rewards those States that used Medicaid to expand access to health care for low income children prior to the creation of SCHIP, by allowing them to access 20 percent of their SCHIP funding to serve this population. this compromise has the endorsement of the National Governors Association and children's health advocates from across the country. In my home State of Maine, where we are using SCHIP to insure over 14,500 children, this proposal will allow the State to keep $13.24 million in SCHIP funding and will provide until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it. In Maine, $13.24 million will help provide health care assistance to a lot of children, children who otherwise would not have access to immunizations, well-baby visits and yearly check-ups. While I agreed to forgo the appropriations process to enact this policy change, I certainly have not abandoned my effort to restore the funding. If in fact, the introduction of this legislation should demonstrate that I am more committed than ever to seeing the SCHIP funding restored. What's more, the Majority Leader and Chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees have provided their support to see this important legislation enacted into law. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support, certainly will speed its passage. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to working together to advance this critical policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in introducing our legislation restoring funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. I would like to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me to secure the deal that has led to the introduction of this legislation and ultimately its signature into law. SCHIP is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for America's children. During debate over the Omnibus appropriations bill, I worked with my colleagues to secure an agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired, or soon to expire, SCHIP funding. This compromise has the support of our Nation's governors and will ensure that this funding remains in the program and continues to provide children with access to the care that is vital to their healthy development. I especially appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to work with us during the omnibus debate to develop the agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important policy, the first step being introduction of this bill. I believe the agreement that I was able to craft with my colleagues is the most appropriate way to restore the SCHIP funding. Because the budget resolution adopted by the House of Representatives does not include adequate budget authority to restore this funding, the floor amendment that I planned to offer to the omnibus appropriations bill would have been subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given that this point of order would have laid against the provision, the likelihood that the House would have stripped the provision during conference was great. In light of those circumstances, I believe that the agreement I negotiated is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding is restored. The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the amendment that filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore SCHIP funding, provide the support of the Majority Leader and Chairmen Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes to remove the budget hurdles that have prevented this legislation from being enacted. Specifically, Senator Nickles has provided his commitment to reallocate through the Fiscal Year 04 budget process additional budget authority for SCHIP in Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04. I am confident that under Senator Nickles' leadership, the budget process will move smoothly and expeditiously and that we will be able to speed the adoption of this proposal in both the Senate and House and Representatives. Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed that as soon as the necessary budget adjustments are made he will move this bill through his committee. Again, under his strong leadership I am confident that we will get this done. Finally, Majority Leader Frist has agreed to place the legislation on the Senate calendar as soon as it is reported from the Finance Committee. I might add that while I am aware that this agreement was forged in the Senate, the underlying policy contained in this bill was developed through a bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and Baucus last fall. I hope that the House of Representatives will work with us to make the necessary changes to the Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year 04 budget allocations and to see this legislation enacted into law in a timely manner. How it works is this, once passed, our legislation will restore $2.7 billion in SCHIP funding that has either reverted to the treasury or is scheduled to revert to HHS for redistribution. On October 1, 2002, $1.2 billion reverted to the treasury in unspent SCHIP funding from 1998 and 1999. If we do not recapture this funding, it will be lost to the program. Our agreement allows the states to reclaim this unspent money and provides until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it on health insurance provided by SCHIP. The policy contained in this legislation also strikes a compromise between States that have spent all of their 2000 and 2001 allotments, and those that have not, by dividing the funding evenly between them. Those States that have not spent all of their allocations will be able to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States will receive additional allotments from the redistributed funding. It also rewards those States that used Medicaid to expand access to health care for low income children prior to the creation of SCHIP, by allowing them to access 20 percent of their SCHIP funding to serve this population. this compromise has the endorsement of the National Governors Association and children's health advocates from across the country. In my home State of Maine, where we are using SCHIP to insure over 14,500 children, this proposal will allow the State to keep $13.24 million in SCHIP funding and will provide until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it. In Maine, $13.24 million will help provide health care assistance to a lot of children, children who otherwise would not have access to immunizations, well-baby visits and yearly check-ups. While I agreed to forgo the appropriations process to enact this policy change, I certainly have not abandoned my effort to restore the funding. If in fact, the introduction of this legislation should demonstrate that I am more committed than ever to seeing the SCHIP funding restored. What's more, the Majority Leader and Chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees have provided their support to see this important legislation enacted into law. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support, certainly will speed its passage. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to working together to advance this critical policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``High School Sports Information Collection Act of 2003''. This legislation directs the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to collect data from our Nation's high schools regarding the participation of America's adolescents in athletics. Passage of this legislation would allow the Department of Education's Office on Civil Rights to better assess whether high schools are meeting the requirements under Title IX passed as part of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The existence of an information gap regarding high school athletic participation was highlighted by a 2001 by the General Accounting Office which was unable to respond to a Congressional request about participation in athletics, including schools' decisions to add or discontinue sports team in high schools, colleges and universities. However, ``because of limited readily available information and the difficulty of collecting comparable information'' the GAO instead could only answer the inquiry about changes in four-year intercollegiate sports. The legislation is simple. It directs the Commissioner to collect information regarding participation in athletics broken down by gender, teams, race and ethnicity; overall budgets and expenditures, including items like travel expenses, equipment and uniforms and their replacement schedules; the numbers of coaches, full and part-time; and scheduling issues like participation in post-season opportunities and successes by team. These data are already reported, in most cases, to the state Departments of Education and would therefore not pose any additional burden on the high schools. The simple straightforwardness of this legislation goes a long way toward ensuring that our high schools are complying with civil rights law as established under Title IX without creating a new paperwork requirement on our schools. After all when considering whether high schools are in compliance with this critical civil rights law, it is necessary to know what is actually happening in the schools. There can be no doubt Title IX has played a role in increasing women's athletic opportunities. However, many argue that the implementation of this law has reduced opportunity for others. While I strongly disagree with such an assessment, I do believe that it is critical that policy makers, parents, coaches, and athletic directors alike have access to precise and timely data to inform the debate and ensure that decisions are based on an accurate picture of interest and participation. Precise information on the participation levels in high school would assist the enforcement of Title IX on the high school level. Participation in athletics renders physical benefits as well as important psychological benefits. Studies have shown that values learned from sports participation, such as teamwork, leadership, discipline, and pride in accomplishment, are important lessons for everyone and are especially beneficial as more women participate in business management and ownership positions in ever higher numbers. Certainly it is no coincidence that 80 percent of female managers of Fortune 500 companies have a background in athletics. There are palpable gains generated by participation in athletics, gains which should be as accessible for females as they have been for males for decades. This legislation compliments current law and in fact would allow us to ensure that the law is being enforced better than we can today. The data regarding the participation of high school students in athletics has been lacking for too long and passage of this legislation would help athletic programs ensure that they are offering equal opportunity for all athletes.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that has plagued individuals and businesses in Maine's northernmost county. Aroostook County. What the bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone program. To fully grasp the importance of this legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County'', as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine known for its expansive forest tracts and rugged terrain. As the northernmost county, it shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties, and has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 76,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. There are 208 townships in Aroostook County, however, well over half of the territory remains unorganized as forestland or wilderness. Anyone traveling in Aroostook County can appreciate what these numbers cannot fully convey. Visiting many remote communities in Aroostook County by car requires navigating long distances on isolated roads, often in wintery conditions. Access by public ground transportation is nonexistent, and air travel is accessible only in the County's two largest towns, each of which has less than 10,000 people. As profound as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic isolation and out-migration that has had the most devastating impact on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number and type of quality jobs that residents need. The decline in the region's economy was further punctuated by the closure of Loring Air Force Base in Limestone in 1994. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and another 1,751 in associated industry sectors, for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars. While officials in the region have put forward a Herculian effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Center alone--Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent to its current level of 76,330. Unfortunately, the Main State Planning Offset predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England. In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 76,330 in 2000. Moreover, a shocking 40 percent of 15 to 29-year olds left during the last decade. The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, contain no more than 3 non-contiguous parcels, and have no more than three developable sites greater than 2,000 acres in aggregate. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. However, some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and economic factors for these communities are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic decline and population out-migration are issues that entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to join me to support this important bill.