The numbers speak for themselves. From July 2000 through July 2003, almost 2.7 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. Here in Maine, we lost more than 17,000 manufacturing jobs in the same three-year period. New England as a region has lost more than 214,000 manufacturing jobs since 1993.

Put simply, restoring stability and growth to the manufacturing sector is at once the most critical and, perhaps, the most challenging task at hand. This month, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which I chair, is making small business manufacturing the focus of a committee field hearing in Lewiston. What comes out of the hearing will be vitally important in our work for the coming months, because it is an opportunity for members to hear from Maine small business representatives, and a number of federal officials whose decisions can have a major impact in helping manufacturers rebound, both here in Maine and across the country.

Indeed, federal efforts are already underway. The Commerce Department is addressing the concern by creating two positions. The Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing will serve as the Administration's point person for manufacturing, and the Assistant Secretary for Trade Promotion will take charge of the Department's export aid programs. Furthermore, the Department will set up a team to track unfair trade competition and help small and medium-sized manufacturers that sell abroad. These developments are positive ones, but I believe several more complicated and difficult problems must be addressed, if we are to begin to bolster manufacturing in Maine and across the country.

First, Congress must replace the "Extraterritorial Income (ETI) Exclusion Act" and the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) provisions that are in current tax laws to provide U.S. companies that export a special tax break.

The intent of those laws was to make U.S. exports more competitive overseas by reducing the maximum tax rate on export income from 35 percent to about 29.75 percent. However, these same tax breaks were targeted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as providing an export subsidy in violation of WTO rules. Consequently, they must be repealed, or else the U.S. could face up to $4 billion in sanctions. At the same time, the repeal would add about $50 billion to the manufacturers' tax burden over the next ten years. Our task, then, is to make sure Congress reallocates this money to ensure domestic manufacturers remain competitive. This month, I supported legislation adopted by the Finance Committee to lower the tax rate for U.S. manufacturers.

As Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I know that including small businesses in whatever new plan Congress develops is critical. Therefore, I approached the Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and requested that he provide small manufacturers and exporters with tax relief comparable to that which larger businesses receive. As I explained to Senator Grassley, it is imperative to include these taxpayers, particularly those small businesses operating as S-Corporations. Fortunately the bill that Chairman Grassley introduced extends this tax to S-Corporations as well as partnerships and sole proprietorships.

But we can do more. There is an opportunity for substantial improvement and expansion of the Small Business Administration's programs and services related to international trade. The Small Business Committee has jurisdiction over the SBA, and I am considering options for expanding and improving the programs and services the SBA makes available to help manufacturers. One possibility would be to focus on encouraging SBA district office personnel and international trade representatives to expand their involvement with U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs). These one-stop shops provide a range of services, including business counseling and financing assistance for exporters.

And while we work here at home, we must also work with nations around the world whose policies affect our manufacturers. Artificially cheap imports from China continue to put pressure on our manufacturers - in fact, China's trade surplus with the United States rose 25 percent during the first half of 2003. China has the advantage of lower labor costs, but U.S. manufacturers have consistently reassured us that they can compete with China - if they can work on a level playing field. Secretary Evans repeatedly has cited unfair trade as a leading factor affecting America's manufacturing sector. He continues to raise concerns about China's artificial manipulation of its currency, its piracy of intellectual property, its trade barriers, and its subsidization of its capital investments.

Accordingly, I urged President Bush in July - and also Treasury Secretary John Snow in August, before his trip to Asia - to confront the Chinese on these issues. I am pleased the administration has increased its pressure. Furthermore, I intend to utilize my positions on the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Commerce Committee to their fullest advantage to aid in this struggle to revitalize manufacturing and curtail unfair trade.

Additionally, I intend to work even more closely with small manufacturers. This month's field hearing is just the first step to focus greater attention on the concerns of small manufacturers and solicit constructive suggestions for aiding the manufacturing sector.Combating manufacturing job losses will not be easy. We face a difficult, long-term struggle to revitalize manufacturing in New England and throughout the country. However, I am committed to working with local, state and federal leaders to focus attention on what must be done to bring about renewed growth and to identify potential solutions to promote it.