Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.

Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Ms. COLLINS. So what the Senator is saying is it has been the Republican Congress that has attempted to live up to the promise made in funding special education; it has been the Republican Congress, and, today, the Appropriations Committee is going to meet to add educational dollars to the President's budget. In fact, we will be increasing spending for essential programs such as special ed, Pell grants, the TRIO programs, above what the President has requested; am I correct in that understanding?

Ms. COLLINS. If I may, I will ask the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been such a leader on education issues, one further question. So this is not a debate about money because it has been the Republicans who have continually increased educational funding. What this is a debate about is who is going to make the decisions. This is a debate about philosophy. Does the Senator agree with that?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I want to join my colleague, Senator Snowe, and reiterate my support for this important proposal. If funding is made available, the Sensor Research/University of Maryland team will examine mercury emissions from several combustion sources and will compare a new family of mercury vapor sensors to state-of-the-art continuous monitoring devices in order to determine the efficacy and fidelity of the newer technology. I understand that these new ``Surface Acoustic Wave'' senors offer the promise of low cost/extremely-high reliability monitoring that can better determine the origin of and transport mechanisms involving this family of pollutants. I thank the Chairman for his consideration of this proposal and ask that he and Senator Mikulski make this a top priority in Conference.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Although Congress has done a good job in recognizing the need for more funding in this area to serve this very vulnerable population, I have become extremely concerned about the process that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has used to award a particular kind of homeless grant, and that is the continuum of care grant. This has been a real problem in my State, and I suspect the Senator from Missouri has heard from other States as well.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues for their assurances. I hope we have sent a very clear signal to HUD that it needs a funding process that ensures the needs of our homeless men and women and children, no matter where they live, are being met. It is particularly important in a State such as Maine, where our winters can be quite severe, that we provide that kind of shelter and assistance in helping people not only get a bed for the night but to put their lives back together. I thank my colleagues very much for their assistance in this matter, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. It seems to me that HUD needs to understand the impact on the homeless, on the very people we are trying to serve, of simply shutting States out from the housing award process. HUD needs to take greater care to work with States where funding may be in peril in order to ensure that we are not hurting the homeless people of our Nation. Contrary to what HUD seems to think, homeless men and women do not disappear. Their needs do not disappear when funding is cut off. In fact, their desperate needs still exist. To address these problems, I have introduced a Senate bill which would require a minimum distribution of continuum of care homeless assistance funding to each State. I realize that I cannot offer that on this bill because of the rule XVI issue, but I hope the chairman and the ranking minority member will agree with me that this is an important issue. Would the chairman agree that the goal of HUD should be to make every effort to ensure that every State can receive some homeless grant funding because every State has homeless people, unfortunately?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by praising the terrific work done by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland in putting together this appropriations bill. I know a lot of the issues are very difficult. They have worked together in a bipartisan way to come up with a bill that is responsible fiscally and yet meets some urgent needs of many people in our Nation. I commend them both for their efforts in this regard. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri giving me this opportunity to engage him in a discussion on an issue of great importance to Maine and the Nation as a whole. That is the issue of providing fair Federal assistance to our homeless men, women, and children, regardless of where they live. Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have been leaders in addressing housing issues affecting underserved and vulnerable populations, especially our Nation's homeless population. Under their leadership, the Department of Housing and Urban Development homeless assistance grants have increased from $823 million in fiscal year 1998 to $975 million in fiscal year 1999. I am very pleased to note that the appropriations bill that is before us now would further increase funding for vital homeless assistance grants by providing a little more than $1 billion for these critical programs. Senator Bond's continued dedication to this vital and often forgotten issue has served the public well, as has the commitment of the Senator from the State of Maryland. I salute them for their effort to direct the funding of the resources to those most in need.

Ms. COLLINS. I note that has been exactly the very unfortunate experience in my State. Let me give you a little background. The needs of the homeless population in Maine have increased in recent years. Often when we think of the homeless, we think of large cities. In fact, there are homeless people throughout this Nation, including in rural States such as Maine. From 1993 to 1996, Maine's homeless population grew by almost 20 percent. It is estimated that more than 14,000 people are homeless in my home State today. Despite this great and growing need, however, the Department of Housing and Urban Development denied both the applications from the State of Maine for continuum of care funding last year. In effect, the HUD competitive homeless assistance funding distributed to the State of Maine went from $3.7 million to zero. You can imagine the impact on my State. Moreover, we were stunned by HUD's decision because Secretary Cuomo, in 1998, had awarded Maine's programs with the HUD ``best practices'' awards of excellence. A vigorous public campaign by people in Maine and repeated efforts by the congressional delegation ultimately compelled HUD to provide $1 million to the city of Portland to renew certain projects. This money, though welcomed, was far from sufficient to allow the State to meet the needs of its homeless population. That is the experience I wanted to share with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleague for making their intent in this respect clear, and I thank them for working with me on this important project both last year and this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor. airline passenger safety

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, in a brief colloquy in order to make clear the intent behind some language contained in the Senate Appropriations Committee's report accompanying S. 1143, the FY 2000 Transportation appropriations bill. I want to first thank the distinguished managers of this bill for their assistance last year in securing approximately $1.2 million in FY 99 funding for advanced engineered wood composites for bridge construction to be conducted by the University of Maine's Advanced Wood Composite Center. As both Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg may recall, the University of Maine is the institution that pioneered this technology and is currently working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in this area of research and development. On page 95 of this year's Senate Appropriations Committee Report accompanying S. 1143, it states in part ``The Committee is interested in research to develop advanced engineering and wood composites for bridge construction and has provided $1.2 million for that purpose within this program.'' I want to inquire of the distinguished managers of this bill if it is their intent that the University of Maine's Advanced Wood Composites Center is to receive the funding referenced by this part of the Committee's report, in order that the University can continue to support FHWA's research in this vital area.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of two amendments I have filed in connection with the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. My amendments, which are cosponsored by Senator Snowe, are expected to be accepted as part of the managers' package, which the chairman of the subcommittee will be sending to the desk shortly. I want to take this opportunity to thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator Gorton, and the ranking minority member, Senator Byrd, for their assistance and support of my proposals. The amendments I am proposing will provide funding and National Park Service support for projects of great historical and international significant to my State and our country. Yet probably only a few of our colleagues have ever heard of St. Croix Island, nestled in the St. Croix River that separates Maine from Canada, or this island's place in the history of the United States and Canada and in the hearts of North Americans of French descent. We have all probably heard of the Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620, or the English colonial settlement at Jamestown in 1607, but few know the story of an even older settlement, dating back to 1604, when French nobleman Pierre Dugua Sieur de Mons, accompanied by a courageous group of adventurers that included Samuel Champlain, landed on St. Croix Island and quickly set about to construct a settlement. They cleared the island, planted crops, dug a well, and built houses, fortifications, public buildings, and gun emplacements. In the process, they were aided by Native peoples who made temporary camps on the island and assisted in various ways. At the same time, Samuel Champlain undertook a number of reconnaissance missions from the island. On one, he found and named Mount Desert Island, now the home to Acadia National Park. By October, the settlement was ready. But the Maine winter was more than the seventy-nine settlers had bargained for. By winter's end, nearly half had died and many others were seriously ill. The spring brought relief from the harsh weather. Sieur de Mons relocated his colony to Port Royal in what is now Nova Scotia and, in 1608, Champlain and a company of men founded Quebec. According to the National Park Service, the French settlement on St. Croix Island in 1604 and 1605 was the first and ``most ambitious attempt of its time to establish an enduring French presence in the `New World.' '' Many view the expedition that settled on St. Croix Island in 1604 as the beginning of the Acadian culture in North America. This rich and diverse culture spread across the continent, from Canada to Louisiana, where French-speaking Acadians came to be known as ``Cajuns.'' The rich history and cultural significance of the 1604 settlement at St. Croix Island are beyond question. Yet, with only four years remaining before the 400th anniversary of the settlement, there is still much to prepare for a proper and appropriate commemoration of this historical event. Let me try to put the occasion in perspective. For the 300th anniversary of the settlement, U.S., British, and French naval ships, flagged out for the occasion, steamed up the St. Croix River and anchored off the historic island. Speakers at the ceremony honoring the anniversary included the consul general of France and the famous U.S. general and Maine patriot, Joshua Chamberlain. Several thousand people attended the celebration. In 1996, the U.S. National Park Service and Parks Canada agreed to ``conduct joint strategic planning for the international commemoration [of the St. Croix Island], with a special focus on the 400th anniversary of settlement in 2004.'' For its part, Parks Canada constructed an exhibit in New Brunswick overlooking St. Croix Island. The exhibit uses Champlain's first-hand accounts, period images, updated research, and custom artwork to tell the compelling story of the settlement. The National Park Service, on the other hand, has plans to expand a small, existing site located just south of Calais, Maine. The Park Service plan envisions a modest, but appropriate outdoor exhibit overlooking St. Croix Island and exhibits in an indoor visitor center, preferably located in nearby Calais. These plans are intended to commemorate in an appropriate way one of only two international historic sites in the U.S. national park system and, as far as they go, the plans are a welcome first step. The next steps have yet to be taken and time is growing short. That is why I offered two amendments to this appropriations bill. The first amendment makes $90,000 available in FY 2000 to finish pre- construction planning for and begin development of the outdoor site at Red Beach and to plan for the possible location of interpretive exhibits in Calais, Maine. Currently, no money is scheduled to be appropriated for the Red Beach site until FY 2002, and National Park Service officials in Maine and in the Northeast Regional Office agree with me that the funding schedule provides for too little too late. This money is needed now in order to ensure that the project is completed in time for the 400th anniversary celebration. My second amendment asks the National Park Service to work with the people of Calais to make an indoor visitors center--known as the ``Downeast Heritage Center--a reality. The people of Calais and surrounding areas have worked tirelessly to move the project towards completion. They need the assistance of the National Park Service-- which already has endorsed the concept--but which now must help with planning and financial assistance to bring the project from a dream to reality. My amendment asks and directs the Park Service to work with the people of Calais on this project and to ensure that appropriate exhibits are completed in time for the 400th anniversary celebration. I further request that the Park Service include in its fiscal year 2001 budget submission funds for both the Red Beach site and the Downeast Heritage Center in downtown Calais. My amendments seeks only a small commitment of funds that are designed to commemorate a 1604 settlement of enormous historical significance. I again want to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for their assistance in helping our country prepare for a terrific 400th anniversary celebration of the early French settlement at St. Croix Island. I yield the floor. amendment no. 1615, as modified On page 76, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following: ``The Forest Service is authorized through the Forest Service existing budget to reimburse Harry Fray for the cost of his home, $143,406 (1997 dollars) destroyed by arson on June 21, 1990 in retaliation for his work with the Forest Service.''

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I rise today to condemn the President's use of the Constitutional power to grant clemency to FALN terrorists. The members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by their Spanish acronym FALN, were responsible for 130 bombings in the late 1970's and early 1980's. As a result of these FALN actions, six people died, scores of citizens were maimed and injured, and the public at large was petrified by an indiscriminate threat. The FALN's stated purpose in conducting this reign of terror was to further the cause of Puerto Rican independence. But it virtually goes without saying that there is no justification for this vicious lawlessness that terrorized, killed and maimed human beings. After a Herculean effort on the part of law enforcement and prosecutors, the FALN members were brought to justice and convicted of a variety of serious charges including seditious conspiracy. Those who suffered at the hands of the FALN, those whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, had names and lives before they had the misfortune to encounter an FALN-placed bomb. But their lives were ended or irrevocably altered by senseless actions. The law enforcement officers and prosecutors who brought the FALN to justice placed themselves at personal risk in their effort to protect the public from the terror of the FALN bombings. On August 11th, the President unexpectedly offered clemency to 16 FALN members. Their release was conditioned on each prisoner renouncing violence, obeying a ban on the use of weapons, and refusing fraternization with independence leaders. Unbelievably, it was indicated that these vague promises would release these individuals from their sentences--a privilege that he has granted only three times previously. And even more unbelievably, these promises were not forthcoming. The President made this clemency offer despite the fact that he was advised against it by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and two United States Attorneys. The President made this offer despite the fact that the jailed FALN members had illustrated no remorse for their actions. This became painfully clear on this past weekend's ``Meet the Press'' where Ricardo Jimenez, one of the freed conspirators, appeared. Mr. Jimenez identified himself as a freedom fighter and justified his criminal actions as a remedy for Puerto Rican ``colonization.'' Mr. Jimenez is not unique among the FALN conspirators in his utter lack of remorse for the terrorist bombings. Unbelievably, in fact, Bureau of Prison audiotapes have captured several of the former FALN members recently released from prison saying they would return to violence upon release. By releasing prisoners convicted of serious crimes, for which they showed no remorse, based on only the promise that they will not commit such crimes again, the President has undermined the standard for eligibility for the extraordinary remedy of clemency. There is no recourse from the President's action, which was based on his unquestioned Constitutional authority. The Senate can only express our sentiment that his actions were appalling and dangerous. Therefore, in the strongest possible terms, I support the resolution offered today condemning the President's action.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senate Republicans are committed to enacting legislation to preserve, strengthen, and save the Medicare system for current and future generations. The Republican congressional budget plan has set aside $505 billion over the next 10 years specifically to address domestic issues such as Medicare. Moreover, $90 billion of this amount has been set aside in a reserve fund that is dedicated exclusively to strengthening Medicare's financing and modernizing its benefits, including the provision of coverage for prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are as important to our senior citizens' health today as the hospital bed was back in 1965 when the Medicare program was first created. Medicare clearly should be restructured to reflect these changing priorities. The money to address this challenge has been set prudently aside as part of the Republican budget. We have the resources, we have the determination, and we have the will to address this critical issue. Now it is up to Congress to come up with the plan, which I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will help us devise. We need to strengthen and modernize this critically important program to meet the health care needs of elderly and disabled Americans into the 21st century. In addition to addressing the long-term structural issues facing Medicare, it is essential that Congress also take action this year to address some of the unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, as well as regulatory overkill by the Clinton administration, which is jeopardizing access to critically important home health care services for millions of senior citizens. The growth in Medicare spending has slowed dramatically, and that is due, in part, to the reforms that were enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While it was Congress' intent in enacting this legislation to slow the rate of growth, it has become increasingly clear that the payment policies implemented by the Clinton administration as a consequence of the Balanced Budget Act have gone too far and that the cutbacks have been far too deep, jeopardizing our seniors' access to critical hospital, skilled nursing, and home health care. Nowhere is this problem more serious than in home health care. America's home health agencies provide services that have enabled a growing number of our most frail and vulnerable senior citizens to avoid hospitals, to avoid nursing homes, and to receive the care they need and want in the security and privacy of their homes, just where they want to be. I have visited with home health nurses in Maine who have taken me on home health visits. I know firsthand how vital these important health care services are to our frail seniors. I know of couples who have been able to stay together in their own home solely because of the services provided by our home health agencies. In 1996, home health was the fastest growing component of the Medicare budget. That, understandably, prompted Congress and the Clinton administration to initiate changes that were intended to make the program more cost-effective and efficient. There was strong bipartisan support for the provisions in the BBA that called for the implementation of a prospective payment system for home care. Unfortunately, until this system is implemented, home health agencies are being paid under a very flawed interim payment system, or IPS. In trying to get a handle on cost, Congress and the administration created a system that penalizes efficient agencies and that may be restricting access to care for the very Medicare beneficiaries who need the care the most. These include our sicker patients with complex chronic care needs, like diabetic wound care patients, or IV-therapy patients who require multiple visits. According to a recent survey by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, almost 40 percent of home health agencies indicated that there were patients whom they previously would have accepted for care, whom they no longer serve due to this flawed interim payment system and the regulatory overkill of the Clinton administration. Thirty-one percent of these agencies admitted they had actually discharged patients due to the inadequate payment system. The discharged patients tend to be those with chronic care needs who require a large number of visits and are expensive to serve. Indeed, they are the very people who most need home health services. I know that Congress simply did not intend to construct a payment system that inevitably discourages home health agencies from caring for those senior citizens who need the service the most. These problems are all the more pressing because they have been exacerbated by the failure of the Clinton administration to meet the original deadline for implementing a prospective payment system. As a result, home health care agencies will be struggling under a flawed IPS system, the interim payment system, for far longer than Congress ever envisioned when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Moreover, it now appears the savings from the Balanced Budget Act were greatly underestimated. Medicare spending for home health care fell by nearly 15 percent last year and the CBO now projects that the post-Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health care will exceed $46 billion over the next 5 years. This is three times greater than the $16 billion that CBO originally estimated for that time period. That is another indication that the cutbacks have been far too deep, far too severe, and much more wide-reaching than Congress ever intended. Again, the flaws in the Balanced Budget Act have been exacerbated by regulatory decisions made by this administration. Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing held by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. We heard firsthand about the financial distress and cash-flow problems of very good, cost-effective, home health agencies from across the country. We heard about the impact of these cutbacks on our senior citizens. Witnesses expressed concern that the problems in the system are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed care, particularly to chronically ill patients with complex needs. Some agencies have actually closed because the reimbursement levels under Medicare have fallen far short of their actual operating costs. Many others in Maine and throughout the Nation are laying off staff or declining to accept new patients, particularly those with the more serious health problems that require more care and more visits. This points to the most critical and central issue: Cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting the care that we provide to our senior citizens. Moreover, the financial problems that home health agencies have been experiencing have been exacerbated by a host of onerous, burdensome, and ill-conceived new regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton administration through HCFA, including the implementation of what is known as OASIS, the new outcome and assessment information data set; new requirements for surety bonds; sequential billing requirements; IPS overpayment recoupment; and a new 15-minute increment home health reporting requirement requiring nurses to act as if they were accountants or lawyers, billing every 15 minutes of their time. Witnesses at our hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations expressed particular frustration with what the CEO from the Visiting Nurse Service in Saco, ME, Maryanna Arsenault, termed as the Clinton administration's regulatory policy of ``implement and suspend.'' She and others pointed to numerous examples of hastily enacted, ill-conceived requirements for surety bonds and sequential billing. No sooner had HCFA imposed the cost burden of a specific mandate on America's home health agencies, than it then had second thoughts and suspended the requirements--but only after damage had been done, only after our home health agencies had invested significant time and resources they do not have, trying to comply with this regulatory overkill. Responding to the excessive regulation of the Clinton administration, as well as the problems in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and I have together introduced legislation titled, ``The Medicare Home Health Equity Act,'' which is cosponsored, I am pleased to say, by a bipartisan group of 26 of our colleagues. It makes needed adjustments in the Balanced Budget Act and related Federal regulations to ensure that our senior citizens have access to necessary home health services. One of the ironies of the formula enacted in the Balanced Budget Act is that it penalizes the low-cost nonprofit agencies that had been doing a good job of holding down their expenses. The program needs to be entirely revamped. The most important provision of our bill eliminates the automatic 15- percent reduction in Medicare home health payments that is now scheduled for October 1 of next year, whether or not a prospective payment system is enacted. I am not overstating the situation when I say that if another 15-percent cut is imposed on America's home health agencies, it would be a disaster. It would threaten our ability to provide these services to millions of senior citizens throughout this country. A further 15-percent cut would be devastating. It would destroy the low-cost, cost-effective providers, and it would further reduce our seniors' access to home health care. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, it is entirely unnecessary because we have already achieved the budget savings that were anticipated in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We have not only exceeded them, we have exceeded them by a factor of three. Our legislation also provides for what we call supplemental ``outlier'' payments to home health agencies on a patient-by-patient basis. This is needed because there are some patients who are expensive to care for because they have complex and chronic health conditions that need a great deal of care. We heed to have a formula that recognizes that there are certain higher cost patients who are higher cost in a legitimate sense. It is still far cheaper to treat those patients through home health care than in a nursing home or hospital setting. The provision in our bill removes the existing financial disincentive for agencies to care for patients with intensive medical needs. We know from the recent studies from GAO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission that those are the individuals who are most at risk right now of losing access to home health services under the current interim payment system. To decrease total costs in order to remain under their per- beneficiary limits, too many home health agencies have had to significantly reduce the number of visits, which in turn has increased the cost of each visit. We need to deal with the regulatory issues that I have mentioned, including OASIS, surety bonds, sequential billing, and the 15-minute incremental reporting requirement. Our legislation accomplishes these goals. The Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1999 will provide a measure of financial and regulatory relief to beleaguered home health agencies in order to ensure that our senior citizens have access to medically necessary home health services. It has been a pleasure to work with the Senate majority leader, Senator Lott, as well as Senator Abraham, Senator Santorum, Senator Bond, and others who have been real leaders in this effort to come up with a solution to this very pressing problem. My hope is that we will make reforming the payment system for Medicare home health services a top priority this fall. I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want also to join in the Senator's praise of Senator Grassley for his leadership on many of the issues affecting senior citizens and rural health care in America.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a commission to study the impact of deregulation of the airline industry on small-town America. For too long, we have allowed small and medium-sized communities from Bangor, Maine to Billings, Montana to Bristol, Tennessee to weather the effects of airline deregulation without adequately assessing how deregulation has affected their economic development, the quality and availability of air transportation for their residents, and the long-term viability of their local airports. It is time to evaluate the effects of airline deregulation in a new, meaningful way. The 1978 deregulation of the airline industry has dramatically shaped the modern airline industry and the way Americans travel. The purpose of deregulation was to harness the market in order to foster competition that would improve service and lower costs for consumers. According to some measures, this market experiment has been a success. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, since the advent of deregulation, the average airfare in major hubs has been reduced by 35 percent. Economists at George Mason University and the Brookings Institution estimate that the increased competition resulting from deregulation saves consumers billions of dollars. Similarly, other studies conducted by the General Accounting Office have shown that deregulation has ushered in an overall decline in airfares and an improvement in the quality of air service--although many of us who fly frequently would take strong issue with the finding of improved quality. For many large cities, this is as far as the story needs be told. But for many smaller and medium-sized communities, several chapters remain. The rest of the story tells us that deregulation's benefits are not evenly distributed throughout U.S. markets. Although a March 1999 GAO report found that, on average, airfares declined about 21 percent from 1990 to the second quarter of 1998, it also found that airports serving small communities have experienced the lowest average decline in airfare. Similarly, the Department of Transportation has found that the competition encouraged by deregulation has not made its way to all parts of our great nation. Indeed, the number of cities served by more than two airlines has fallen 41 percent since 1989. In short, there are signs that the airline deregulation story is not good for smaller and medium-sized communities--like Presque Isle and Bangor in my state. There are important areas of inquiry that, I believe, no one has yet explored, and that is why I am introducing this bill today. We need to know more about how airline deregulation has affected smaller and medium-sized communities, and we need to focus on the relationship between access to affordable, quality airline service and the economic development of America's smaller communities. As many communities continue to struggle to attract businesses, it is not enough for us report that airfares, in the aggregate, have decreased in constant dollars. Nor is it sufficient to select certain proxies for quality air travel and to conclude that quality has improved. Just as not all communities have benefitted equally from our recent prosperity, not all can say that deregulation has enhanced their air transportation. We need to evaluate how airline deregulation has affected these communities' ability to compete for business development, job creation, and economic expansion. In the process, we need to differentiate between business and leisure travel, as each serves a very different set of needs in our communities. And we much ask communities how they measure quality service, instead of making assumptions that may or may not apply to a given area. What I am proposing is a thorough evaluation of the effects of airline deregulation on communities--an evaluation that has not yet been done, but would happen under the bill I introduce today. Mr. President, during the past 20 years, air travel has become increasingly linked to business development. Successful businesses expect and need to be able to travel quickly over long distances. It is expected that a region being considered for business location or expansion should be reachable, conveniently, via airplane. Those areas without air access, or with access that is restricted by prohibitive costs of travel, infrequent flights, or small, slower planes are at a distinct disadvantage compared to those areas that enjoy accessible, convenient, and economical air service. This country's air infrastructure has grown to the point where it now rivals our ground transportation infrastructure in its importance to the economic viability of communities. It has long been accepted that building a highway creates an almost instant corridor of economic activity of businesses eager to cut shipping and transportation costs by locating close to the stream of commerce. Like a community located on an interstate versus one only reachable by back roads, a community with a mid-size or small airport underserved by air carriers operates at a distinct disadvantage to one located near a large airport. Bob Ziegelaar, Director of the Bangor, Maine International Airport, perhaps put it best. He tells me, ``Communities like Bangor are at risk of being left with service levels below what the market warrants both in terms of capacity and quality. The follow-on consequences is a decreasing capacity to attract economic growth.'' This issue is of critical importance and has not received the attention it deserves. The legislation I have introduced will result in a comprehensive examination of how this complicated issue affects the economy of small town America. It would establish a commission of 15 members from all areas of the country, including at least five members from rural areas, to study and report on the effects of airline deregulation. The Commission will examine a vital component of the deregulated airline industry--the effects on economic development and job creation, particularly in areas that are underserved by air carriers. The Commission will also explore the broader effects of deregulation on affordability, accessibility, availability, and the quality of air transportation, nationally and in small-sized and medium-sized communities. It will explore deregulation's impact on the economical viability of smaller airports and the long-term configuration of the U.S. passenger air transportation system. Mr. President, sometimes the best use we can make of the Senate's legislative powers is to study the results of our previous actions. In passing airline deregulation, Congress unleashed the power of competition with many positive benefits for consumers who live in large cities. It is now time to evaluate the impact on residents living in small-town America. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a commission to study the impact of deregulation of the airline industry on small-town America. For too long, we have allowed small and medium-sized communities from Bangor, Maine to Billings, Montana to Bristol, Tennessee to weather the effects of airline deregulation without adequately assessing how deregulation has affected their economic development, the quality and availability of air transportation for their residents, and the long-term viability of their local airports. It is time to evaluate the effects of airline deregulation in a new, meaningful way. The 1978 deregulation of the airline industry has dramatically shaped the modern airline industry and the way Americans travel. The purpose of deregulation was to harness the market in order to foster competition that would improve service and lower costs for consumers. According to some measures, this market experiment has been a success. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, since the advent of deregulation, the average airfare in major hubs has been reduced by 35 percent. Economists at George Mason University and the Brookings Institution estimate that the increased competition resulting from deregulation saves consumers billions of dollars. Similarly, other studies conducted by the General Accounting Office have shown that deregulation has ushered in an overall decline in airfares and an improvement in the quality of air service--although many of us who fly frequently would take strong issue with the finding of improved quality. For many large cities, this is as far as the story needs be told. But for many smaller and medium-sized communities, several chapters remain. The rest of the story tells us that deregulation's benefits are not evenly distributed throughout U.S. markets. Although a March 1999 GAO report found that, on average, airfares declined about 21 percent from 1990 to the second quarter of 1998, it also found that airports serving small communities have experienced the lowest average decline in airfare. Similarly, the Department of Transportation has found that the competition encouraged by deregulation has not made its way to all parts of our great nation. Indeed, the number of cities served by more than two airlines has fallen 41 percent since 1989. In short, there are signs that the airline deregulation story is not good for smaller and medium-sized communities--like Presque Isle and Bangor in my state. There are important areas of inquiry that, I believe, no one has yet explored, and that is why I am introducing this bill today. We need to know more about how airline deregulation has affected smaller and medium-sized communities, and we need to focus on the relationship between access to affordable, quality airline service and the economic development of America's smaller communities. As many communities continue to struggle to attract businesses, it is not enough for us report that airfares, in the aggregate, have decreased in constant dollars. Nor is it sufficient to select certain proxies for quality air travel and to conclude that quality has improved. Just as not all communities have benefitted equally from our recent prosperity, not all can say that deregulation has enhanced their air transportation. We need to evaluate how airline deregulation has affected these communities' ability to compete for business development, job creation, and economic expansion. In the process, we need to differentiate between business and leisure travel, as each serves a very different set of needs in our communities. And we much ask communities how they measure quality service, instead of making assumptions that may or may not apply to a given area. What I am proposing is a thorough evaluation of the effects of airline deregulation on communities--an evaluation that has not yet been done, but would happen under the bill I introduce today. Mr. President, during the past 20 years, air travel has become increasingly linked to business development. Successful businesses expect and need to be able to travel quickly over long distances. It is expected that a region being considered for business location or expansion should be reachable, conveniently, via airplane. Those areas without air access, or with access that is restricted by prohibitive costs of travel, infrequent flights, or small, slower planes are at a distinct disadvantage compared to those areas that enjoy accessible, convenient, and economical air service. This country's air infrastructure has grown to the point where it now rivals our ground transportation infrastructure in its importance to the economic viability of communities. It has long been accepted that building a highway creates an almost instant corridor of economic activity of businesses eager to cut shipping and transportation costs by locating close to the stream of commerce. Like a community located on an interstate versus one only reachable by back roads, a community with a mid-size or small airport underserved by air carriers operates at a distinct disadvantage to one located near a large airport. Bob Ziegelaar, Director of the Bangor, Maine International Airport, perhaps put it best. He tells me, ``Communities like Bangor are at risk of being left with service levels below what the market warrants both in terms of capacity and quality. The follow-on consequences is a decreasing capacity to attract economic growth.'' This issue is of critical importance and has not received the attention it deserves. The legislation I have introduced will result in a comprehensive examination of how this complicated issue affects the economy of small town America. It would establish a commission of 15 members from all areas of the country, including at least five members from rural areas, to study and report on the effects of airline deregulation. The Commission will examine a vital component of the deregulated airline industry--the effects on economic development and job creation, particularly in areas that are underserved by air carriers. The Commission will also explore the broader effects of deregulation on affordability, accessibility, availability, and the quality of air transportation, nationally and in small-sized and medium-sized communities. It will explore deregulation's impact on the economical viability of smaller airports and the long-term configuration of the U.S. passenger air transportation system. Mr. President, sometimes the best use we can make of the Senate's legislative powers is to study the results of our previous actions. In passing airline deregulation, Congress unleashed the power of competition with many positive benefits for consumers who live in large cities. It is now time to evaluate the impact on residents living in small-town America. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing entitled ``Day Trading: An Overview.'' This Subcommittee hearing will focus on the practices and operations of the securities day trading industry. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 16, 1999, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Lee Blalack of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. My colleague and friend from Mississippi is clearly dedicated to the well-being of rural citizens from across the Nation. I thank him for his clarification of this matter of great importance to rural, coastal Maine and look forward to enacting this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the further clarification and would like to ask one additional question if I may. Could the study called for in the report address the feasibility and desirability of establishing a cold- water aquaculture research program in the State of Maine?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is no question that cold-water marine aquaculture holds enormous exciting potential that remains untapped by the Federal Government. Despite its cryptic name, cold- water marine aquaculture is the lifeblood of a very tangible important industry. Each year millions of Atlantic salmon are raised in the cold quick-moving coastal water off the coast of Downeast Maine. The strong tides and rocky coast combined with many sheltering islands provide the perfect environment for a commercially viable finfish aquaculture industry. My discussions with the Agricultural Resources Service, experienced aquaculturalists, and researchers at the University of Maine have confirmed that the coast of Maine would, indeed, be an excellent location for Federal research into marine aquaculture. I understand that language included in the Agricultural appropriations bill requires ARS to study all of its current aquacultural activities. Is it the chairman's understanding that the study referenced in this bill will focus on, among other things, the feasibility of marine cold-water research program?

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Jeffords amendment to delay implementation of the final pricing rule on Federal milk market order reform. The intent of this amendment is to delay the expiration of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I am proud to be a strong supporter of the Compact, which is a proven success that is critical to the survival of dairy farmers in Maine and throughout New England. First approved by Congress in the 1996 farm bill, the New England Dairy Compact already has a proven track record of quantifiable benefits to both consumers and farmers. The Compact works simply by evening out the peaks and valleys in fluid milk prices, providing stability to the cost of milk and ensuring a supply a fresh, wholesome, local milk. This past year, the Compact has proven its worth to both dairy farmers and consumers. As prices climbed and farmers were receiving a sustainable price for milk, the Compact turned off, allowing the market to function through principles of supply and demand. But when prices dropped sharply, the Compact was triggered to soften and slow the blow to farmers of an abrupt and dramatic drop in the volatile, often unpredictable milk market. Consumers also benefit from the Compact. Not only does the Compact stabilize prices, thus avoiding dramatic fluctuation in the retail cost of milk, it also guarantees that the consumer is assured the availability of a supply of fresh, local milk. We've known for a long time that dairy products are an important part of a healthy diet, but recent studies are proving that dairy products provide a host of previously unknown nutritional benefits. Just as we are learning of the tremendous health benefits of dairy foods, however, milk consumption, especially among young people, is dropping. It is a crucial, common- sense, first step to reverse this trend, for milk to be available and consistently affordable for young families. Finally, the Compact, while providing clear benefits to dairy producers and consumers in the Northeast, has proven it does not harm farmers or taxpayers from outside the region. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget showed that, during the first 6-months of the Compact, it did not adversely affect farmers from outside the Compact region and added no costs to Federal nutrition programs. Mr. President, many of Maine's dairy farmers tell me that the Compact is critical to their long-term survival and ability to continue to maintain a way of life vital to rural communities. On behalf of these farmers and consumers throughout New England and the country, I urge my colleagues to support the Jeffords amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.