Olympia Snowe

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. 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.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, America and the world watched with equal measures of shock and sadness on the morning of February 1, as the Shuttle Columbia was lost and seven heroes perished in the skies over Texas. At this most somber of times, we pray for the souls of the seven astronauts, as well as the families of those who gave their lives to advance humankind. We also extend our most profound sympathies to all Israelis as they mourn their fallen countryman, the first Israeli astronaut. Their boundless joy has turned to the deepest sorrow, and we share in their terrible loss. Today, we remember Rick D. Husband, commander; William C. McCool, pilot; Michael P. Anderson, payload commander; David M. Brown, mission specialist; Kalpana Chawla, mission specialist; Laura Blair Salton Clark, mission specialist; and Ilan Ramon, payload specialist. Their names are no longer of the pedestrian Earth, they now belong to the ages, forever etched in the halls of history. We can scarcely comprehend the dangers which they accepted daily as the price for making a difference in the world. For most of us, we could not imagine a life so punctuated by peril. For them, they could not imagine life in any other form, and it is we who are the beneficiaries of their courage. For those who exist on the vanguard of human endeavor, we reserve our highest regard and greatest respect. For it is they who set new standards by challenging old limits. It is they who embrace the ultimate risk in exchange for mapping the realm of possibility. We can no more place ourselves in their minds and hearts than we can imagine what it is like to stand on a street corner in a city we have never seen. We occupy a different space in the world. But we know and can appreciate the fruits of their extraordinary labor, and that is probably all they would ever ask of us. The Space Shuttle Columbia, on mission STS-107, was dedicated to research in the space, life, and physical sciences. The seven astronauts worked around the clock, for 16 days, to carry out studies in the areas of astronaut health and safety, advanced technology development, and Earth and space sciences. It is true they carried with them experiments designed to expand the store of human knowledge. But they also carried with them the pride of the United States and Israel, and the hopes of the people of our two great nations for a brighter and better tomorrow. Our hearts are now heavy, but our pride and our hope are not diminished, far from it. Indeed, the spirit represented by Columbia cannot be vanquished by such crude and earthly instruments as physics or fire. Rather, the spirit embodied by her and her crew is of a higher, infinitely more durable plane, where the finest of human ideals and pursuits never die, but only grow stronger with the passing of the days. In moving forward, we must now ascertain what went wrong, and take every conceivable step to ensure it is never repeated for the sake of those who, in the years ahead, will once more ride into the breach of space. As President Bush has said, ``The cause in which they died will continue. Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on.'' Perhaps that is best way for us to honor the memory of those seven astronauts who never returned from Columbia. Robert F. Kennedy once said, ``There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?'' That is the credo by which the seven astronauts of Columbia lived their lives, and their legacy will be remembered as long as greatness is revered. Again, I join with my colleagues and all of America in expressing my deepest appreciation, and my most sincere condolences to the families. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. May God grant them strength and comfort as He welcomes home the crew of Columbia.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein today in renewing the call we made in the 107th Congress for improving vehicle fuel economy by taking logical steps to close the SUV loophole provided to the ``light truck'' category in the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Program. My colleague has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I am proud to work with her again in introducing S. 255, our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. I know when we introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. But can anyone honestly say we are better off today without nothing? That we are in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible 2 years ago? Just think about where we would be today, we would be a model year away from giving consumers greater choices in purchasing more fuel efficient SUVs. And we would also be that much closer to controlling our own energy destiny by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, all the more critical at a time when the current strike in Venezuela and the situation in Iraq make already volatile world oil markets even more precarious. As an oil analyst with the Deutsche Bank in London recently put it, ``The oil markets can stand having one thing go wrong, but not two. That's what's happening with Venezuela and Iraq.'' And it is not as though we haven't been burned by the foreign oil market before. It is not as though this is something we have never thought of. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Arab oil embargo. I recall in the 1970s when the day you were allowed to refuel your car was determined by whether the last number of your license plate was odd or even. Why hasn't any of this been enough to wean us off this habit? Right now, we rely more on foreign oil than ever. In 2001, 55 percent of the U.S. total demand was met by oil from abroad, up from 37 percent in 1980 around the time when the original CAFE standards took effect, I might add, and by 2025 that number will jump to a projected 70 percent if we don't take action. With such a large percentage of this imported resource coming from such a volatile region of the world, what do we need to have happen before we feel a sense of urgency? The fact is, this is an emergency, and we can make a difference. Even just increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007, which the administration proposes, would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons through that year. Just imagine what we could achieve with the proposal Senator Feinstein and I are re-introducing, which would phase-in changes in CAFE requirements in four, attainable stages that will bring the standards for SUV's in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years. Our legislation is backed by the findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences CAFE report that this body requested in 2000 on CAFE standards. The report clearly states that, ``Because of concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.'' I believe that fuel economy through better vehicle mileage is probably the most significant and realistic environmental and energy independence issue we, as leaders, could tackle this year in developing our Nation's energy policy. Had the Senate boosted fuel economy standards over a decade ago as proposed by Senators Bryan and Gorton rather than defeating the measure by three votes, new vehicles would be averaging 33 miles per gallon today instead of 24.5 miles per gallon, and the U.S. would have saved more than 1 billion barrels of oil each and every day. Instead, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars? And it is not just an environmental issue, it is also a pocketbook issue, with rising prices at the pump. In fact, according to DOE's Energy Information Administration, the typical price for regular unleaded gas, now $1.47 per gallon, is a full 37 cents higher than just a year ago. Yet ironically, in the past quarter century since the last adjustments were made to CAFE standards, overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980, 24.7 miles per gallon. Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy? Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40-percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period, and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was a year-and- a-half ago. But, automakers have instead invested their new technologies in other attributes over the past 13 years. Specifically, there has been a 53- percent increase in horsepower, a 19-percent increase in weight, an 18- percent increase for acceleration and, correspondingly, a minus eight percent decrease for fuel economy. The bottom line is that the auto industry has had the technological opportunities to do better but chose another road. They tell us this is what the consumer wants. But maybe that is because, for the most part, consumers haven't been presented with viable alternatives. Indeed, a March 2002 poll by the Mellman Group shows that nearly three-quarters of voters nationwide favor increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Another survey conducted since 9/11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., showed that 88 percent of likely voters support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. We have seen what a positive difference changes in CAFE standards can make. The NAS panel experts found that, as a result of CAFE standards put into law by Congress in 1975, we have achieved a 75-percent increase in fuel economy for cars. Cars went from 15.8 mpg in 1975 to 27.5 mpg in 1985. And, through CAFE standards, we have seen a 50- percent increase for light trucks, from 13.7 mpg in 1975 to 20.7 mpg in 1987. In addition, NAS noted that CAFE helped maintain fuel economy levels when market forces might have forced fuel economy lower in the passenger fleet. I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'', and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. How can we do anything less? Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve these goals, and it is an idea whose time has long since arrived. When I think back to the balanced budget debate in the Senate, many of us argued that continued deficits would leave the generations to come with mountains of debt, and we had an obligation to ensure that this did not happen. Today, I say to you that we have a similar obligation to take practical steps, to make practical tradeoffs to ensure that generations to come won't be left with a mountain of carbon dioxide emissions, with an even greater dependency on foreign oil, with even higher prices at the pump, and with fewer of our precious natural resources. I urge my colleagues to take the responsible road and support the Feinstein-Snowe CAFE standards incremental increases for SUVs and the light truck category as the right direction to take.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feinstein today in renewing the call we made in the 107th Congress for improving vehicle fuel economy by taking logical steps to close the SUV loophole provided to the ``light truck'' category in the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, Program. My colleague has been a passionate advocate of this proposal, and I am proud to work with her again in introducing S. 255, our practical, attainable bill that can garner the kind of broad support necessary to address this national imperative this year. I know when we introduced our plan in 2001, some believed it was too much too soon, while others felt it didn't go far enough. But can anyone honestly say we are better off today without nothing? That we are in better shape because we failed to pass what is possible 2 years ago? Just think about where we would be today, we would be a model year away from giving consumers greater choices in purchasing more fuel efficient SUVs. And we would also be that much closer to controlling our own energy destiny by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, all the more critical at a time when the current strike in Venezuela and the situation in Iraq make already volatile world oil markets even more precarious. As an oil analyst with the Deutsche Bank in London recently put it, ``The oil markets can stand having one thing go wrong, but not two. That's what's happening with Venezuela and Iraq.'' And it is not as though we haven't been burned by the foreign oil market before. It is not as though this is something we have never thought of. This year is the 30th anniversary of the Arab oil embargo. I recall in the 1970s when the day you were allowed to refuel your car was determined by whether the last number of your license plate was odd or even. Why hasn't any of this been enough to wean us off this habit? Right now, we rely more on foreign oil than ever. In 2001, 55 percent of the U.S. total demand was met by oil from abroad, up from 37 percent in 1980 around the time when the original CAFE standards took effect, I might add, and by 2025 that number will jump to a projected 70 percent if we don't take action. With such a large percentage of this imported resource coming from such a volatile region of the world, what do we need to have happen before we feel a sense of urgency? The fact is, this is an emergency, and we can make a difference. Even just increasing fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007, which the administration proposes, would reduce gasoline consumption by 2.5 billion gallons through that year. Just imagine what we could achieve with the proposal Senator Feinstein and I are re-introducing, which would phase-in changes in CAFE requirements in four, attainable stages that will bring the standards for SUV's in line with passenger cars within the next 8 years. Our legislation is backed by the findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences CAFE report that this body requested in 2000 on CAFE standards. The report clearly states that, ``Because of concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the level of oil imports, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to ensure fuel economy levels beyond those expected to result from market forces alone.'' I believe that fuel economy through better vehicle mileage is probably the most significant and realistic environmental and energy independence issue we, as leaders, could tackle this year in developing our Nation's energy policy. Had the Senate boosted fuel economy standards over a decade ago as proposed by Senators Bryan and Gorton rather than defeating the measure by three votes, new vehicles would be averaging 33 miles per gallon today instead of 24.5 miles per gallon, and the U.S. would have saved more than 1 billion barrels of oil each and every day. Instead, all our vehicles combined consume 40 percent of our oil, while coughing up 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse gas linked to global climate change. To put this in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide emission just from U.S. vehicles alone is the equivalent of the fourth highest carbon dioxide emitting country in the world. Given these stunning numbers, how can we continue to allow SUVs to spew three times more pollution into the air than our passenger cars? And it is not just an environmental issue, it is also a pocketbook issue, with rising prices at the pump. In fact, according to DOE's Energy Information Administration, the typical price for regular unleaded gas, now $1.47 per gallon, is a full 37 cents higher than just a year ago. Yet ironically, in the past quarter century since the last adjustments were made to CAFE standards, overall fuel economy has actually fallen to its lowest level since 1980, 24.7 miles per gallon. Just think for a moment how much the world has changed technologically over the past 25 years. We have seen the advent of the home computer and the information age. Computers are now running our automobiles, and global positioning system devices are guiding drivers to their destinations. Are we to believe that technology couldn't have also helped those drivers burn less fuel in getting there? Are we going to say that the whole world has transformed, but America doesn't have the wherewithal to make SUVs that get better fuel economy? Well, I don't believe it, and neither does the National Academy of Sciences that issued a report in 2001 in response to Congress' request the previous year that the NAS study the issue. They concluded that it was possible to achieve a more than 40-percent improvement particularly in light truck and SUV fuel economy over a 10-15 year period, and that technologies exist now for improving fuel economy. That was a year-and- a-half ago. But, automakers have instead invested their new technologies in other attributes over the past 13 years. Specifically, there has been a 53- percent increase in horsepower, a 19-percent increase in weight, an 18- percent increase for acceleration and, correspondingly, a minus eight percent decrease for fuel economy. The bottom line is that the auto industry has had the technological opportunities to do better but chose another road. They tell us this is what the consumer wants. But maybe that is because, for the most part, consumers haven't been presented with viable alternatives. Indeed, a March 2002 poll by the Mellman Group shows that nearly three-quarters of voters nationwide favor increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Another survey conducted since 9/11 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., showed that 88 percent of likely voters support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. We have seen what a positive difference changes in CAFE standards can make. The NAS panel experts found that, as a result of CAFE standards put into law by Congress in 1975, we have achieved a 75-percent increase in fuel economy for cars. Cars went from 15.8 mpg in 1975 to 27.5 mpg in 1985. And, through CAFE standards, we have seen a 50- percent increase for light trucks, from 13.7 mpg in 1975 to 20.7 mpg in 1987. In addition, NAS noted that CAFE helped maintain fuel economy levels when market forces might have forced fuel economy lower in the passenger fleet. I don't want America's SUV manufacturers to be ``the industry that time forgot?'', and history clearly shows that the Federal Government must play a role in ensuring that consumers have a choice in vehicles with high degrees of fuel economy, an appropriate degree of safety and a minimal impact on our environment. How can we do anything less? Closing the SUV loophole will help us achieve these goals, and it is an idea whose time has long since arrived. When I think back to the balanced budget debate in the Senate, many of us argued that continued deficits would leave the generations to come with mountains of debt, and we had an obligation to ensure that this did not happen. Today, I say to you that we have a similar obligation to take practical steps, to make practical tradeoffs to ensure that generations to come won't be left with a mountain of carbon dioxide emissions, with an even greater dependency on foreign oil, with even higher prices at the pump, and with fewer of our precious natural resources. I urge my colleagues to take the responsible road and support the Feinstein-Snowe CAFE standards incremental increases for SUVs and the light truck category as the right direction to take.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. This bill continues and builds upon the research efforts established in 1998 by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. I am very pleased to continue working with my friend and co-sponsor Senator Breaux on this important issue. He and I represent coastal States that are directly affected by harmful algal bloom outbreaks and hypoxia, and we see the ecological and economic damage, as well as the risks to human health, that are caused by these events. In Maine, for example, harmful algal blooms lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. When humans eat shellfish that have fed on algae in the genus Alexandrium, they are exposed to the toxins that have accumulated in the fish as a result of the algae. Along with human, fish and marine mammals suffer and die from this exposure. This phenomenon, which occurs along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, has increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years. Although we have learned a great deal about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in recent years, we still have a long way to go in understanding, predicting, and mitigating these events. Massive fish kills still occur along our coastlines on almost a regular basis, leading to extensive impacts on fish and shellfish populations and fishing industries. Beach-goers and anglers are still being warned of ``no swimming'' and ``no fishing'' alerts when conditions pose a threat to human health. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in a 2000 study, estimated the annual economic impact from harmful algae to be $49 million, in lost tourism, fishing, and health costs. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the U.S. approximately $1 billion could be lost in the next decade due to harmful algae. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia present enormous challenges to marine resource managers. For example, consider what happens in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-one States drain into the Mississippi River, and the runoff from this massive watershed is carried into the gulf. When the waters heat up in the summer, the heavy loads of nutrients in this runoff likely contribute to massive algal blooms. When these algae die and decompose they are consumed by bacteria, which depletes oxygen from the water. If the algal blooms are extensive enough, they will essentially remove all oxygen from the water. No sea life can live under these conditions, which creates a massive area in the water column known as the ``dead zone.'' At that point, all we can really do is wait it out. Clearly, we need to equip our coastal and ocean managers with better tools for predicting, minimizing, and mitigating these outbreaks. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are just as much of a problem now as they were in 1998, when we passed the original bill. It is clear that these problems have not gone away. Algal blooms are still prevalent around the country, the dead zone still occurs each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and the management and mitigation measures we set the framework for in our 1998 bill still need to be realized. Our 1998 bill authorized a cross-section of research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. These activities were to encompass basic and applied sciences, looking at the distribution and frequency of outbreaks, as well as how they may be better mitigated and managed. This research, however, was never fully funded at the authorized amounts for research and monitoring, so many of these research activities still need to occur, and many on-going projects need to continue. These amendments would authorize the funding that will reignite these scientific activities. Our 1998 bill also codified an Interagency Task Force, chaired by the Department of Commerce. Through this group, experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous other appropriate Federal agencies were able to start the long process of collectively understanding and seeking solutions to many aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This Task Force spearheaded a technical assessment of the causes and consequences of the northern Gulf of Mexico dead zone, an action plan to eliminate this dead zone, a national assessment of harmful algal blooms, and a national assessment of hypoxia. I would like to express my appreciation for the hard work and accomplishments of this group, yet I realize--as do they--that much more needs to be done. The 1998 bill allowed the President to disestablish the Task Force after submission of their reports. Considering the great challenges that lay before us and this Task Force, we need to keep this group intact so that they can follow through on their previous recommendations and continue much of their ongoing collaborative efforts. This bill would repeal the Task Force disestablishment clause in the 1998 bill. This reauthorization continues to seek the valuable contributions of Task Force members on a response and prediction action plan to protect environmental and public health from impacts of harmful algal blooms. This plan would review prediction techniques, develop innovative response measures, and include incentive-based partnership approaches. The Task Force would contribute to this plan, as would coastal zone management experts from State and local governments, Indian tribes, industries, universities, and non-governmental organizations. In developing this process, we mirrored the process used for the dead zone action plan, one of the products of the Task Force from the 1998 bill, to ensure widespread public participation and involvement of the coastal governors. The dead zone action plan recommended a national framework for reducing nutrients entering the Mississippi River as well as regional plans to implement any needed measures. While a national framework is essential for facilitating the widespread changes that are needed, it is at the local and regional level that solutions must be developed and implemented. The regional plans will help avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, since local and regional variations in the types of land use, landscape geology, and community input should be taken into account when carrying out nutrient reduction and outbreak mitigation measures of this magnitude. By tailoring mitigation and management measures to each location, the overall approach can be more effective. Local and regional assessments are a key component of this reauthorization as well. Coastal states, Indian tribes, and local governments would be able to request these local and regional assessments of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, so they can better understand the causes, impacts, and mitigation alternatives for these outbreaks. By having the Commerce Department and the Task Force provide and assist in these assessments, local and regional communities can be more empowered to take action on reducing the magnitude and impacts of these outbreaks. This bill would authorize $26 million in FY04, and $26.5 million in FY05, and $27 million in FY06. These funding levels reflect modest increases in some of the research and monitoring programs authorized in the 1998 bill and provide funding for the new assessments and implementation of their recommendations. This reauthorization enables collaborative, science-based research efforts that can help us to better understand how to predict and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. It facilitates action at the local and regional levels, which is a key element for effectively addressing and minimizing the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of these outbreaks. I wish to thank Senator Breaux for his continued vigilance and important contributions on this matter, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. This bill continues and builds upon the research efforts established in 1998 by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. I am very pleased to continue working with my friend and co-sponsor Senator Breaux on this important issue. He and I represent coastal States that are directly affected by harmful algal bloom outbreaks and hypoxia, and we see the ecological and economic damage, as well as the risks to human health, that are caused by these events. In Maine, for example, harmful algal blooms lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. When humans eat shellfish that have fed on algae in the genus Alexandrium, they are exposed to the toxins that have accumulated in the fish as a result of the algae. Along with human, fish and marine mammals suffer and die from this exposure. This phenomenon, which occurs along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, has increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years. Although we have learned a great deal about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in recent years, we still have a long way to go in understanding, predicting, and mitigating these events. Massive fish kills still occur along our coastlines on almost a regular basis, leading to extensive impacts on fish and shellfish populations and fishing industries. Beach-goers and anglers are still being warned of ``no swimming'' and ``no fishing'' alerts when conditions pose a threat to human health. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in a 2000 study, estimated the annual economic impact from harmful algae to be $49 million, in lost tourism, fishing, and health costs. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the U.S. approximately $1 billion could be lost in the next decade due to harmful algae. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia present enormous challenges to marine resource managers. For example, consider what happens in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-one States drain into the Mississippi River, and the runoff from this massive watershed is carried into the gulf. When the waters heat up in the summer, the heavy loads of nutrients in this runoff likely contribute to massive algal blooms. When these algae die and decompose they are consumed by bacteria, which depletes oxygen from the water. If the algal blooms are extensive enough, they will essentially remove all oxygen from the water. No sea life can live under these conditions, which creates a massive area in the water column known as the ``dead zone.'' At that point, all we can really do is wait it out. Clearly, we need to equip our coastal and ocean managers with better tools for predicting, minimizing, and mitigating these outbreaks. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are just as much of a problem now as they were in 1998, when we passed the original bill. It is clear that these problems have not gone away. Algal blooms are still prevalent around the country, the dead zone still occurs each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and the management and mitigation measures we set the framework for in our 1998 bill still need to be realized. Our 1998 bill authorized a cross-section of research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. These activities were to encompass basic and applied sciences, looking at the distribution and frequency of outbreaks, as well as how they may be better mitigated and managed. This research, however, was never fully funded at the authorized amounts for research and monitoring, so many of these research activities still need to occur, and many on-going projects need to continue. These amendments would authorize the funding that will reignite these scientific activities. Our 1998 bill also codified an Interagency Task Force, chaired by the Department of Commerce. Through this group, experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous other appropriate Federal agencies were able to start the long process of collectively understanding and seeking solutions to many aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This Task Force spearheaded a technical assessment of the causes and consequences of the northern Gulf of Mexico dead zone, an action plan to eliminate this dead zone, a national assessment of harmful algal blooms, and a national assessment of hypoxia. I would like to express my appreciation for the hard work and accomplishments of this group, yet I realize--as do they--that much more needs to be done. The 1998 bill allowed the President to disestablish the Task Force after submission of their reports. Considering the great challenges that lay before us and this Task Force, we need to keep this group intact so that they can follow through on their previous recommendations and continue much of their ongoing collaborative efforts. This bill would repeal the Task Force disestablishment clause in the 1998 bill. This reauthorization continues to seek the valuable contributions of Task Force members on a response and prediction action plan to protect environmental and public health from impacts of harmful algal blooms. This plan would review prediction techniques, develop innovative response measures, and include incentive-based partnership approaches. The Task Force would contribute to this plan, as would coastal zone management experts from State and local governments, Indian tribes, industries, universities, and non-governmental organizations. In developing this process, we mirrored the process used for the dead zone action plan, one of the products of the Task Force from the 1998 bill, to ensure widespread public participation and involvement of the coastal governors. The dead zone action plan recommended a national framework for reducing nutrients entering the Mississippi River as well as regional plans to implement any needed measures. While a national framework is essential for facilitating the widespread changes that are needed, it is at the local and regional level that solutions must be developed and implemented. The regional plans will help avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, since local and regional variations in the types of land use, landscape geology, and community input should be taken into account when carrying out nutrient reduction and outbreak mitigation measures of this magnitude. By tailoring mitigation and management measures to each location, the overall approach can be more effective. Local and regional assessments are a key component of this reauthorization as well. Coastal states, Indian tribes, and local governments would be able to request these local and regional assessments of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, so they can better understand the causes, impacts, and mitigation alternatives for these outbreaks. By having the Commerce Department and the Task Force provide and assist in these assessments, local and regional communities can be more empowered to take action on reducing the magnitude and impacts of these outbreaks. This bill would authorize $26 million in FY04, and $26.5 million in FY05, and $27 million in FY06. These funding levels reflect modest increases in some of the research and monitoring programs authorized in the 1998 bill and provide funding for the new assessments and implementation of their recommendations. This reauthorization enables collaborative, science-based research efforts that can help us to better understand how to predict and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. It facilitates action at the local and regional levels, which is a key element for effectively addressing and minimizing the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of these outbreaks. I wish to thank Senator Breaux for his continued vigilance and important contributions on this matter, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the chair and ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill, and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources. In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the act was originally authorized. Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea-ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development. As voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy. The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns. Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 encourages, but does not require, them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in nonpoint source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool I am proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more. The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of Local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential. Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estaurine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. I wish to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant Program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State. However, sine 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a $2 million dollar cap per State on administrative grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating States. Over the past 8 years, appropriations for administrative grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated. In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states are treated fairly. The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal States due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation. This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development. I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the chair and ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill, and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources. In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the act was originally authorized. Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea-ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development. As voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy. The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns. Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 encourages, but does not require, them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in nonpoint source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool I am proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more. The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of Local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential. Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estaurine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership. Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. I wish to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant Program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State. However, sine 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a $2 million dollar cap per State on administrative grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating States. Over the past 8 years, appropriations for administrative grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated. In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states are treated fairly. The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal States due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation. This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development. I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am here today to cosponsor legislation that should help resolve the current crisis being faced by the U.S. softwood lumber industry, which continues to be devastated by the continuation of a ``wall of subsidized wood'' coming from four Canadian provinces that are effectively avoiding countervailing duty and antidumping orders of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This is causing a crisis in current market conditions not only in Maine but across the Nation. The purpose of the U.S. countervailing duty, or CVD, law, is to offset unfair foreign subsidies which cause injury to our U.S. producers. In the Canadian softwood lumber case, Commerce has determined that some Canadian provinces subsidize their lumber mills at prices that are 33 to 55 percent below market value. Currently, Canadian prices for salvage timber, for instance, are as low as $1 per thousand board feet at the same time the competitive market value is over $100 thousand board feet. Our antidumping law is supposed to ensure that foreign products are not sold for less than its cost of production. Currently, the Department of Commerce does not consider countervailing duties as a cost of production, thereby undervaluing the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the price of lumber rather than comparing the cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the price of lumber. Ignoring countervailing duties when then calculating antidumping duties undervalues the actual amount of dumping, and is devastating to our U.S. softwood lumber industry. The Craig/Baucus legislation that I am supporting today amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that countervailing duties should be added into the cost of production as it reflects the true cost of production by offsetting subsidies. This provision will rectify the problem of undervalued dumping duties and make U.S. trade policies consistent with those of our trading partners, such as Canada and the European Union. Adopting this clarification should have an immediate market impact. With the correction of the current problem, Canadian mills would face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. This legislation should demonstrate the resolve of the U.S. government to reach a fair and permanent solution to the softwood lumber trade case by increasing the risk to Canadian companies if a negotiated settlement is not reached. The Canadian lumber industry and its governments must realize that the U.S. will continue to impose the required duty offsets until the subsidies and dumping stop. I commend the Department of Commerce for their diligent work on the softwood lumber case with Canada and cannot urge our U.S. trade negotiators strongly enough to reach a settlement with Canada just as soon as possible before we have yet another U.S. mill close its doors for good. The subsidized and dumped lumber from Canada has been devastating to my State of Maine, where sawmills continue to close their doors for good, affecting entire rural communities where these businesses are located, and where the mills are often the major source of good paying jobs in these areas. Moreover, if a negotiated settlement is not reached, I believe that the U.S. should vigorously pursue the litigation with the World Trade Organization, WTO, especially since the WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber rather than provincial governments. Again, this legislation being offered today by Senators from all regions of the country provides a much needed clarification of U.S. trade law, in keeping with those of Canada and the European Union, that will greatly help the U.S. softwood lumber industry out of its current economic crisis that has been caused by subsidized, underpriced imports, and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am here today to cosponsor legislation that should help resolve the current crisis being faced by the U.S. softwood lumber industry, which continues to be devastated by the continuation of a ``wall of subsidized wood'' coming from four Canadian provinces that are effectively avoiding countervailing duty and antidumping orders of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This is causing a crisis in current market conditions not only in Maine but across the Nation. The purpose of the U.S. countervailing duty, or CVD, law, is to offset unfair foreign subsidies which cause injury to our U.S. producers. In the Canadian softwood lumber case, Commerce has determined that some Canadian provinces subsidize their lumber mills at prices that are 33 to 55 percent below market value. Currently, Canadian prices for salvage timber, for instance, are as low as $1 per thousand board feet at the same time the competitive market value is over $100 thousand board feet. Our antidumping law is supposed to ensure that foreign products are not sold for less than its cost of production. Currently, the Department of Commerce does not consider countervailing duties as a cost of production, thereby undervaluing the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the price of lumber rather than comparing the cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the price of lumber. Ignoring countervailing duties when then calculating antidumping duties undervalues the actual amount of dumping, and is devastating to our U.S. softwood lumber industry. The Craig/Baucus legislation that I am supporting today amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that countervailing duties should be added into the cost of production as it reflects the true cost of production by offsetting subsidies. This provision will rectify the problem of undervalued dumping duties and make U.S. trade policies consistent with those of our trading partners, such as Canada and the European Union. Adopting this clarification should have an immediate market impact. With the correction of the current problem, Canadian mills would face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. This legislation should demonstrate the resolve of the U.S. government to reach a fair and permanent solution to the softwood lumber trade case by increasing the risk to Canadian companies if a negotiated settlement is not reached. The Canadian lumber industry and its governments must realize that the U.S. will continue to impose the required duty offsets until the subsidies and dumping stop. I commend the Department of Commerce for their diligent work on the softwood lumber case with Canada and cannot urge our U.S. trade negotiators strongly enough to reach a settlement with Canada just as soon as possible before we have yet another U.S. mill close its doors for good. The subsidized and dumped lumber from Canada has been devastating to my State of Maine, where sawmills continue to close their doors for good, affecting entire rural communities where these businesses are located, and where the mills are often the major source of good paying jobs in these areas. Moreover, if a negotiated settlement is not reached, I believe that the U.S. should vigorously pursue the litigation with the World Trade Organization, WTO, especially since the WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber rather than provincial governments. Again, this legislation being offered today by Senators from all regions of the country provides a much needed clarification of U.S. trade law, in keeping with those of Canada and the European Union, that will greatly help the U.S. softwood lumber industry out of its current economic crisis that has been caused by subsidized, underpriced imports, and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me on restoring funding to the State Children's Health Insurance Program that is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for America's children. For the past week, I have worked with my colleagues to secure this agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired--or soon to expire--S-CHIP funding. This compromise that has been endorsed by our Nation's Governors would 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 appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to work with us in developing this agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important policy. I believe this agreement is the most appropriate way to restore the S-CHIP 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 filed to the omnibus appropriations bill would be subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given that this point of order would lie against the provision, the likelihood that the House would strip this during conference is great. In light of these circumstances, I believe this agreement is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding is restored. The agreement that was struck would--in exchange for withdrawing the amendments that my colleagues and I filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore S-CHIP funding--provide the support of the majority leader and Chairmen Grassley and Nickels to make necessary changes that will 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 S-CHIP in fiscal year 03 and fiscal year 04. Senator Nickles, I am confident that under your 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 of Representatives. Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed to move this policy through his committee as soon as the necessary changes are made to the budget allocations. 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 proposal was developed through a bipartisan, bicameral process led by Senators Grassley and Baucus last fall. I hope 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 vital policy enacted in a timely manner. Since 1977, States have made historic progress in their effort to insure low-income children under S-CHIP. In fact, the National Center for Health Statistics just released data this month showing that the percentage of children 17 years of age and younger with health insurance has increased from 86.1 percent in 1997 to 91.2 percent during the first half of 2002. During this same period of time, statistics show the percentage of children insured by Government programs, such as S-CHIP, also increased to 27.2 percent. While these statistics are encouraging, a great deal of work remains if we are to address the critical issues of affordability and accessibility of health insurance, especially as they relate to health care for our children. These compelling statistics reinforce the necessity that Congress must act to restore the expiring S-CHIP funds. If we delay, we could jeopardize the substantial progress that has been made since 1997 in increasing the number of insured children in America. It is estimated that without restoration of this funding, almost 1 million children could lose health insurance coverage. How it works is this--once passed, the policy would restore $2.7 billion in S-CHIP 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 S-CHIP 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 S-CHIP. It 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 would be able to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States would 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 S-CHIP, by allowing them to access some of their S-CHIP 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 this proposal would allow the State to keep $13.24 million in S-CHIP funding and would provide until the end of Fiscal Year 04 to spend it. I don't know about your State, but 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 checkups. While my colleagues and I have agreed to forgo the appropriations process as the vehicle to move this package, we certainly have not abandoned our effort to restore the funding. In fact, we are more committed than ever to seeing the S-CHIP funding restored and have added the support of the majority leader and chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support, will help to speed its passage. In closing, I would like to highlight a quote from Secretary Thompson when his agency released the positive new data I referenced earlier regarding the level of health insurance for children in our country. He said, ``More and more children are getting the health care they need, thanks in large measure to our success in working with States to expand health coverage through the S-CHIP program. We are giving Governors the flexibility they need to continue to expand coverage to more children, and our strategy is paying off for children and parents alike.'' This strong endorsement of S-CHIP should act as an impetus to getting this policy enacted and ensuring that we do so in a timely fashion. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to working with you as we move forward to enact this policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's aviation security network. In the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly. We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues. But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the after math of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done,'' because we are only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system. I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to this day, is lax air cargo security infrastructure in this country. According to the GAO, a full 22 percent of all the cargo shipped by air in this country in 2000 was shipped on passenger flights and typically half of the hull of every passenger plane is filled with cargo. The Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that current air cargo controls be tightened, particularly the process for certifying freight forwarders and assessing their compliance with security requirements, and has warned that the existing screening system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand. Moreover, according to a Washington Post report last summer, Internal Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen passengers and luggage. This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And time is not on our side. We must act now. The bill I am introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the TSA to submit a detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the current system. And while TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5 percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance, training and background checks for cargo handlers, and funding for screening and detection equipment. On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, women, and children. This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set in 2001. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the Chair and Ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources. In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our Nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the Act was originally authorized. Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this Act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development. As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy. The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns. Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 encourages, but does not require them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific non-point source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in non- point source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool. I'm proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more. The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than on-point source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2003, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential. Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative federal-state partnership. Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. The provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. I would like to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a two million dollar cap per State on Administrative Grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating states. Over the past eight years appropriations for Administrative Grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a two million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated. In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I would like to thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the States are treated fairly. The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal states due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the Ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the Ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation. This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development. I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's aviation security network. In the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly. We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues. But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the after math of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must-do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done,'' because we are only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system. I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to this day, is lax air cargo security infrastructure in this country. According to the GAO, a full 22 percent of all the cargo shipped by air in this country in 2000 was shipped on passenger flights and typically half of the hull of every passenger plane is filled with cargo. The Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that current air cargo controls be tightened, particularly the process for certifying freight forwarders and assessing their compliance with security requirements, and has warned that the existing screening system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand. Moreover, according to a Washington Post report last summer, Internal Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen passengers and luggage. This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And time is not on our side. We must act now. The bill I am introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the TSA to submit a detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the current system. And while TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5 percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance, training and background checks for cargo handlers, and funding for screening and detection equipment. On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, women, and children. This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set in 2001. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the Chair and Ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources. In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our Nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the Act was originally authorized. Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals. This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this Act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive Federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development. As a voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives. The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy. The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns. Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 encourages, but does not require them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program. This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific non-point source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in non- point source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool. I'm proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more. The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than on-point source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical. The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2003, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential. Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative federal-state partnership. Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. The provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. I would like to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a two million dollar cap per State on Administrative Grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating states. Over the past eight years appropriations for Administrative Grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a two million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated. In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I would like to thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the States are treated fairly. The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal states due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the Ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the Ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation. This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development. I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman and ranking member are aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service administers the electric programs that provide funding and support services for utilities that serve rural communities in order to assist in modernizing local infrastructure. I ask the chairman and ranking members to give consideration to the extraordinary electricity costs faced by the island communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven, and work to have the Rural Utilities Service assist Fox Islands Electric Cooperative in providing reliable and affordable electricity to these communities. The 1,770 households in North Haven and Vinalhaven obtain electricity from four undersea electric cables that run twelve miles to the mainland. These cables, which are maintained by Fox Island Electric Cooperative and serve as the islands' only source of electricity, were originally installed back in 1978 and have now reached the end of their manufacturing life expectancy. Over the past five years the cables have been failing with ever-increasing frequency and since February, electric service has been interrupted four times. I have been in touch with the Fox Islands Electric Cooperative and the communities of Vinalhaven and North Haven about this situation, and it has become clear that the escalating nature of this problem deserves attention. With that said, Fox Islands Electric Cooperative is confronted with the difficult decision of taking on significant debt to replace the submarine cables or continue operating the outmodeled transmission system. Unfortunately, both alternatives will continue to impose high electric costs on the townspeople. Each household on the island currently pay 15.5 cent per kilowatt hour, a rate almost triple the national average. Without assistance in replacing these cables electricity rates would rise to 23 cents per kilowatt hour. As the chairman and ranking member are aware, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill provides $30 million for the Rural Utilities High Energy Cost Project to assist communities with extremely high energy costs. If the communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven quality for the High Energy Cost Program, this could provide much needed assistance to the citizens who pay an extraordiarily high rate for their electric utilities. Any consideration that the distinguished chairman and ranking member can provide is much appreciated.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the State Children's Health Insurance Program and to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me on restoring funding to this program that is essential to ensuring continued health care coverage for America's children. For the past week, I have worked with my colleagues to secure this agreement that will restore $2.7 billion in expired, or soon to expire, SCHIP funding. This compromise, that has been endorsed by our Nation's Governors, would 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 appreciate the willingness of Majority Leader Frist, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Budget Committee Chairman Nickles to work with us in developing this agreement. Because of their commitment to finding a solution, we are able to move forward with this important policy. I believe this agreement 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 filed to the omnibus appropriations bill would be subject to a budget point of order in the House. Given the that this point of order would lie against the provision, the likelihood that the House would strip this during conference is great. In light of these circumstances, I believe that this agreement is the most appropriate way to ensure that this funding is restored. The agreement that was struck would, in exchange for withdrawing the amendments that my colleagues and I filed to the omnibus appropriations bill to restore SCHIP funding--provide the support of the majority leader and Chairman Grassley and Nickles to make necessary changes that will 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 2004 budget process additional budget authority for SCHIP in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. Senator Nickles, I am confident that under your 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 of Representatives. Further, Chairman Grassley has agreed to move this policy through his committee as soon as the necessary changes are made to the budget allocations. 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 calender 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 proposal 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 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budget allocations and to see this vital policy enacted in a timely manner. Since 1997, States have made historic progress in their effort to insure low-income children under SCHIP. In fact, the National Center for Health Statistics just released data this month showing that the percentage of children 17 years of age and younger with health insurance has increased from 86.1 percent in 1997 to 91.2 percent during the first half of 2002. During this same period of time, statistics show the percentage of children insured by government programs, such as SCHIP, also increased to 27.2 percent. While these statistics are encouraging, a great deal of work remains if we are to address the critical issues of affordability and accessibility of health insurance, especially as they relate to health care for our children. These compelling statistics reinforce the necessity that Congress must act to restore the expiring SCHIP funds. If we delay, we could jeopardize the substantial progress that has been made since 1997 in increasing the number of insured children in America. It is estimated that without restoration of this funding, almost one million children could lose health insurance coverage. How it works it this, once passed, the policy would 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 2004 to spend it on health insurance provided by SCHIP. It 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 would be able to retain half of their funding, while the remaining States would 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 some 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, this proposal would allow the State to keep $13.4 million in SCHIP funding and would provide until the end of fiscal year 2004 to spent, I do not know about your State, but 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 my colleagues and I have agreed to forgo the appropriations process as the vehicle to move this package, we certainly have not abandoned our effort to restore the funding. If fact, we are more committed then ever to seeing the SCHIP funding restored and have added the support of the majority leader and chairs of the Finance and Budget Committees. Adding their endorsement to this effort, which already has garnered strong bipartisan support, will help to speed its passage. In closing, I wish to highlight a quote from Secretary Thompson when his agency released the positive new data I referenced earlier regarding the level of health insurance for children in our country. He said: More and more children are getting the health care they need, thanks in large measure to our success in working with states to expand health coverage through the SCHIP program. We are giving governors the flexibility they need to continue to expand coverage to more children, and our strategy is paying off for children and parents alike. This strong endorsement of SCHIP should act as an impetus to getting this policy enacted and ensuring that we do so in a timely fashion. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues and look forward to working with you as we move forward to enact this policy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003 on behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am pleased to be joining with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally Herger, to move this important initiative for small business toward enactment. This legislation embodies a leading provision of the President's economic recovery package for small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country. By enabling small firms to expense more of the equipment they purchase, this bill provides a tailor-made incentive for the small business sector of our economy to invest in new technology and expand their operations. We should never under-state the role that small businesses play in our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, provide about 75 percent of the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the only ``small'' aspect of small business. The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality of the small business and entrepreneurs in America. Regrettably, when we enacted stimulus legislation last year, we missed a tremendous opportunity to improve a provision of the tax law aimed directly at small firms, Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than depreciate it over a period of years. During the Senate's consideration of last year's stimulus bill, we approved an increase to the expensing limits by a vote of 90-2. Sadly, that provision was dropped from the final package that was sent to the President. As the incoming Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I intend to correct that error by responding to the calls from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the country for greater expensing of new equipment. I applaud the President for making this issue a key part of his economic recovery proposal. By tripling the current expensing limit to $75,000, broadening the phaseout of this provision, and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with the complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased from the current $200,000 to $325,000 in new equipment purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the retail-sector of the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. I am confident that small businesses will lead us out of the current economic problems as they have in past downturns. We have a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the text of the bill and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Expensing Improvement Act of 2003 on behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed individuals. I am pleased to be joining with my colleague in the House, Congressman Wally Herger, to move this important initiative for small business toward enactment. This legislation embodies a leading provision of the President's economic recovery package for small businesses and entrepreneurs in this country. By enabling small firms to expense more of the equipment they purchase, this bill provides a tailor-made incentive for the small business sector of our economy to invest in new technology and expand their operations. We should never under-state the role that small businesses play in our economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, provide about 75 percent of the net new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the only ``small'' aspect of small business. The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality of the small business and entrepreneurs in America. Regrettably, when we enacted stimulus legislation last year, we missed a tremendous opportunity to improve a provision of the tax law aimed directly at small firms, Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than depreciate it over a period of years. During the Senate's consideration of last year's stimulus bill, we approved an increase to the expensing limits by a vote of 90-2. Sadly, that provision was dropped from the final package that was sent to the President. As the incoming Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I intend to correct that error by responding to the calls from small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the country for greater expensing of new equipment. I applaud the President for making this issue a key part of his economic recovery proposal. By tripling the current expensing limit to $75,000, broadening the phaseout of this provision, and indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two important objectives. First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more of the equipment purchases today, instead of waiting five, seven or more years to recover their costs through depreciation. That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time small businesses would otherwise have to spend complying with the complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment will contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our economy. Second, as a result of this bill, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the phase-out limit will be increased from the current $200,000 to $325,000 in new equipment purchases. At the same time, small business capital investment will be pumping more money into the retail-sector of the economy. Accordingly, this is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole. I am confident that small businesses will lead us out of the current economic problems as they have in past downturns. We have a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment and leaving them more of their earnings to do just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the text of the bill and an explanation of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that I introduced today to permit the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Small Business Administration, SBA, to use a recently-completed econometric model to calculate the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) small business loan guarantee program, the flagship loan program at the SBA. I am very pleased that Senators Bond, Kerry, Crapo, Bennett, Enzi, Burns, and Landrieu are original cosponsors of this important legislation. Our bill, once signed into law by President Bush, will allow the 7(a) loan program to meet the borrowing demands of our Nation's small businesses, which is approximately $10 billion for fiscal year 2003. Without this bill, the program would limit 7(a) loans to less than $5 billion for FY 2003. Currently, the 7(a) program is operating at a very reduced capacity, with a loan size cap of $500,000, to avoid exceeding the program limitations. By limiting the 7(a) guaranteed small business loan program, we are unnecessarily hampering much-needed job growth in the United States. Just 2 days ago, we here in the Senate passed much-needed legislation to extend jobless benefits for 20 more weeks. These benefits are intended to help those persons who have already been unemployed for 6 months. This is much too long for someone who is actively looking for a job. And we should be doing everything possible to support job creation opportunities. The SBA 7(a) small business loan program is just the answer. According to the SBA, the 7(a) program is its most efficient program for creating new jobs. Historically, the SBA maintains the ``job coefficient'' for the 7(a) loans is $32,382. The SBA ``job coefficient'' is the amount of an SBA-guaranteed 7(a) loan that leads to one job. Based on the SBA's ``job coefficient'' for the 7(a) program, the impact of the small business guaranteed loan program is staggering. According to the OMB, enactment of our bill and implementation of the econometric model will reduce the credit subsidy rate of the 7(a) program from 1.76 percent to 1.04 percent. This reduction will expand the size of the 7(a) program from $4.85 billion to $8.2 billion, an increase of nearly $3.5 billion. Based on the SBA 7(a) ``job coefficient,'' the increase in lending from our bill will result in nearly 21,000 more loans to small businesses that will support 103,690 jobs. And no additional Federal Government spending will be needed to support this change. The good news about the expansion of the 7(a) small business loan program does not stop here. Part of our strategy to expand the 7(a) loans program is to reprogram leftover, no-year funds previously appropriated for the SBA's STAR terrorist disaster recovery loan program, which is set to expire on January 10, 2003. If the reprogramming is approved later this month as part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, the leftover STAR funds would be used for the regular 7(a) loan program. At this time, there is approximately $20 million remaining, which would support an additional 12,000 loans to small businesses totaling $1.92 billion, while assuming a credit subsidy rate of 1.04 percent established by the new econometric model. SBA-guaranteed loans to small businesses made with these funds would support 60,000 more jobs. Unlike many stimulus plans that project benefits that occur years after enactment of the proposal, the expansion of the SBA's 7(a) program makes a critical expansion of the jobs a ``today'' event rather than a promise in the future. Once our bill is enacted, the increased lending between now and September 30, 2003, will guarantee 21,000 small business loans that support over 103,000 jobs. And after the STAR reprogramming is approved, 12,000 loans can be made to small businesses that support another 60,000 jobs. That's over 163,000 more jobs between now and the end of fiscal year 2003. How incredible is that? The ``econometric model'' is a significant reform in the way the SBA and OMB calculates the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) loan program. Our bill provides that the OMB and SBA will adopt the new econometric model effective retroactively to October 1, 2002. Developed by the SBA and OMB, the econometric model will use far more comprehensive data about individual borrowers and loans when forecasting anticipated defaults and establishing loan reserves to cover them. Under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the annual appropriation for the SBA must, in advance, provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of a Federal loan guarantee, after taking into consideration the fees paid by small business borrowers and lenders under the 7(a) program. This amount, referred to as the credit subsidy rate, is determined by the OMB prior to the submission of the President's annual budget request to the Congress. Critics of the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) program have cited the use of historical loan performance data that pre-dates the enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act as a major cause of a credit subsidy rate that greatly exceeds actual loan performance. The consequence is the use of the most conservative loan default rates, year-in and year-out, and the failure by the OMB and the SBA to adjust historical loan performance data to reflect 7(a) program changes, both statutory and regulatory, that have lead to real reductions in the default rates and improved program performance. According to an in- depth analysis undertaken by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the excessively high credit subsidy rates have resulted in nearly $1 billion in unnecessary fees being paid by small business borrowers and lenders to the U.S. Treasury. It is very unrealistic to believe that a 100 percent accurate credit subsidy rate estimate can be derived for the 7(a) loan program, or for any other Federal credit program. The econometric model, designed to calculate the 7(a) credit subsidy rate, is a major improvement over the ``old'' model. Originally, the administration stated that the econometric model would not be available until FY 2004. After extensive discussions with the senior White House staff, the administration has agreed to accelerate their use of the model retroactive to October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY 2003. Their policy change is a very positive effort to help small businesses and promote job growth. Our bill is designed to waive a key provision of the Federal Credit Reform Act that prohibits the Congress from changing a credit subsidy rate estimate once it has been transmitted to the Congress as part of the President's annual budget submission. This may be the first time this provision has been waived since implementation of the act in FY 1992. We would not be where we are today resolving this important matter without the tireless efforts of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mr. Manzullo, chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, fought for this change every step of the way. The ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, was especially vigilant in her efforts. In the Senate, my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, John Kerry, has kept the committee focused on resolving this issue for the past year. We have all fought hard to resolve the credit subsidy rate controversy for the past year. We have all fought hard to resolve the credit subsidy rate controversy for FY 2003. Resolving the 7(a) credit subsidy rate issue is good for small businesses, is good for those seeking work and is good for America. It will mean more jobs, more opportunity and economic fuel for start-up companies. It will also be invaluable in growing small businesses. I urge each of my colleagues to vote a resounding ``aye'' for this important bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering passage of H.R. 1989 and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., the ``Act'', and the National Standards Guidelines developed and implemented by the Secretary of Commerce set forth specific standards for establishing, amending, and re-setting fishery rebuilding plans and timelines developed under that Act's rebuilding provisions, codified in, among other provisions, 16 U.S.C. 1854(e). New information and scientific analyses become available through time, and there can be a need to amend and adjust rebuilding plans and timelines based on such new information and analyses. In certain instances, such information and analyses indicating that biomass rebuilding targets can and should be substantially increased. These increases in biomass targets, especially in the midst of an on-going rebuilding plan, may, in appropriate circumstances, require flexibility to ensure that the rebuilding program accomplishes the full range of the Act's goals and national standards. The Secretary of Commerce, who is charged with implementing the Act, has the discretion to provide flexibility in a rebuilding plan or timeline when the biomass target for a fish species or stock is substantially increased. The flexibility confirmed in Section 604 of H.R. 1989 clarifies the Secretary's discretion contained in the Act and does not limit or otherwise constrain additional areas for flexibility in rebuilding contained within the Act. This section clarifies the flexibility that Congress provided the Secretary in the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. This flexibility is necessary due to the unanticipated event of biomass targets being substantially increased during a rebuilding period. Schedules for ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished fisheries are required by the Sustainable Fisheries Act and must be specified. The Sustainable Fisheries Act does, however, provide the Councils and the Secretary with a significant degree of flexibility in determining time frames for ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fisheries. For instance, the requirement that schedules for ending overfishing and rebuilding fisheries be ``as short as possible'' and the conditional 10-year rebuilding period deadline provide valuable standards to help guide the councils in the development of plans to end overfishing and rebuild fisheries. In drafting this provision, however, Congress clearly understood that fisheries are not managed in a vacuum and that rebuilding schedules should be based not only on the biological and ecological conditions of the fishery, but also on the needs of fishing communities as well as any international management measures that may apply. The relative weight of a particular factor would depend on the circumstances facing a fishery and would be determined by the councils, but the biology and life history characteristics of a species will always be very important in determining the ultimate rebuilding schedule. Properly construed, the Sustainable Fisheries Act rebuilding provisions permit the councils to set a longer rebuilding schedule in cases where the stock or stocks at issue grow relatively slowly, and/or the size of the stock is sufficiently small that even under conditions of moderate or no fishing mortality, rebuilding will necessarily take a significantly longer period of time. In the case of a slower-growing species, the Sustainable Fisheries Act provisions allow a council to establish a rebuilding schedule longer than 10 years to accommodate the life history characteristics, including growth rates, of the species. The term ``biology of the stock of fish'' was included in section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) so that councils would have the ability to devise individual rebuilding schedules in harmony with the biological parameters of a fish population's growth capacity. Section 304(e)(4)(A)(ii) also enables the Councils to establish rebuilding schedules longer than 10 years if the stock or stocks in question are managed under an international agreement to which the U.S. is a party, and any management measures or recommendations approved pursuant to such an agreement contain a rebuilding schedule longer than 10 years. In such circumstances, the rebuilding schedule developed under Section 304(e)(4), as well as other management provisions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, must be consistent with the rebuilding schedule and associated management measures and recommendations under the international agreement. In drafting section 304(e)(4)(A), Congress wanted to ensure that U.S. harvesters of species managed under an international regime were not saddled with a disproportionate conservation burden and not placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts from other countries that are parties to the regime.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the Senate has recently passed by unanimous consent a resolution, S. Con. Res. 122, that I, along with Senators Biden and Sarbanes introduced expressing support for Cyprus' membership in the European Union, EU. This is a timely and significant statement of support for the Senate to make on the cusp of Cyprus' membership and I would like to thank Senators Biden and Sarbanes for their efforts toward achieving the passage of S. Con. Res. 122. Just this past month, Cyprus moved yet another step closer to its goal of EU membership. At the end of October, the 15 European nations met in Brussels and endorsed the recommendations of the European Commission that Cyprus and nine other countries become EU members in 2004. It was agreed that Cyprus had fulfilled the political criteria for accession and will be able to meet the economic criteria and assume the obligations of membership. It is expected that an official invitation for membership will be expanded this December, with accession in 2004. The EU countries did reaffirm the call for continuing efforts by President Clerides and Turkish-Cypriots to work toward a solution to the Cyprus problem by the end of the year. However, as was stated at the Helsinki Summit in 1999, such a solution is not a precondition for Cyprus' membership. After 27 years Cyprus remains a divided nation. However, as an EU member, the entire island of Cyprus will see economic benefits. All Cypriots will have access to new markets, a freer exchange of goods and services, balanced and sustainable development as well as the free movement of persons, goods and services, and capital. But EU membership is not only about economic prosperity it is also about human rights. The EU guarantees citizens of its members human, legal and civil rights as well as the means and legal recourse necessary to secure the full application of these fundamental individual rights. Moreover, Cyprus' EU membership will be, and has been, a catalyst for the solution to the Cyprus problem as the mere prospect of membership has already yielded progress. That Cypriot President Clerides and Turkish-Cypriot leader Denktash have been meeting since January in direct talks to seek a resolution of the division of Cyprus is seen as evidence of the positive leverage exacted by expected EU accession. As a result of these continuous meetings, other international efforts have occurred such as the recent submission by the U.N. Secretary General of a comprehensive proposal for the solution of the Cyprus problem. If it were not for Turkey's desire to also be an EU member knowing that other EU members could block this goal it is questionable whether these talks would even be taking place. That, along with improved economic prosperity and guaranteed human rights, is why it was vital that the Senate go on record as supporting Cyprus' EU membership.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to enter into a colloquy with several of my colleagues from coastal States regarding Section 888 of the final version of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The provisions of Section 888 were drafted to preserve the traditional roles and missions of the Coast Guard and ensure they are not altered or diminished. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has taken on additional homeland security responsibilities resulting in its largest peacetime port security operation since World War II. While our new reality requires the Coast Guard to maintain a robust homeland security posture, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its other traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection. As a Senator from a coastal State, and as the ranking member on the Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, I can attest that all these missions are critically important and that the American people rely on the Coast Guard to perform them each and every day. The language in Section 888, which I developed with Senators Stevens and Collins, strikes the proper balance and ensures the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions will not be compromised or decreased in any substantial or significant way by the transfer to the new Department of Homeland Security. First and foremost, it ensures that the Coast Guard will remain in distinct entity and continue in its role as one of the five Armed Services. The Coast Guard plays a unique role in our government, in which it serves as both an armed service as well as a law enforcement agency, and this must not be changed or altered. This language in Section 888 maintains the primacy of the Coast Guard's diverse missions by establishing the Coast Guard as a distinct agency under the Secretary of Homeland Security and mandates that the Coast Guard Commandant will report directly to the Secretary, rather than to or through a Deputy Secretary. Additionally, this section prevents the Secretary of this new Department from making substantial or significant changes to the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions or alter its capabilities to carry out these missions, except as specified in subsequent Acts. It also prohibits the new department from transferring any Coast Guard missions, functions, or assets to another agency in the new Department except for personnel details and assignments that do not reduce the Service's capability to perform its non-homeland security missions. This section also requires the Inspector General of the new Department to review and assess annually the Coast Guard's performance of its non-homeland security missions and to report the findings to the Congress. I also am pleased to see the inclusion of my amendment requiring the new Homeland Secretary, in consultation with the Commandant, to report to Congress within 90 days of enactment of this Act on the benefits of accelerating the Coast Guard's Deepwater procurement time line from 20 years to 10 years. The Deepwater project, which will recapitalize all of the Coast Guard assets operating 50 or more miles from our coasts, is already underway. However, the Coast Guard must wait up to 20 years, in some instances, to acquire already existing technology. I believe that we must accelerate the Deepwater acquisition project and acquire these much-needed assets for the Coast Guard now, not 20 years down the road. Madam President, Section 888 is a strong statement by the Congress that the Coast Guard is an essential component of the new Department and that its non-homeland security missions and capabilities must be maintained due to their overriding importance, not only to coastal States such as Maine, but also to the entire nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today in support of this bipartisan legislation creating a new Department of Homeland Security. Since the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, we have acted to increase our efforts to counter terrorism by strengthening borders, improving information sharing among agencies, and giving our law enforcement agencies the legal tools to investigate and prosecute terrorists and those that help terrorists financially. Congress has considered and passed both the USA PATRIOT Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act which have both changed laws to ensure that providing for our national security in order to prevent future terrorist attacks is a top priority. This bill also ensures that the 22 agencies with a substantial role in protecting our homeland have the materials and resources they require. This legislation is recognition that homeland security has taken on an entirely new meaning since 9/11. What was once a concern with terrorists acting against U.S. interests overseas has been realized and expanded to include those same acts happening right here at home. The war has been brought to the U.S. and we are now rising to the challenge. This was precisely the type of thinking demonstrated by President Bush in the summer of 2001, when he instructed the intelligence community to provide an assessment of the threat posed by al-Qaida domestically rather than overseas. And President Bush did exactly the right thing in the wake of last year's horrific attacks when he established the Office of Homeland Security, now headed by Governor Ridge, to coordinate counter-terrorism activities by the various U.S. agencies and departments as well as develop an overall strategy. This strategy has culminated in the proposal of a new Department of Homeland Security. As the principal advisor to the President on homeland security issues, the service of Governor Ridge has been exemplary. The time has come, however, for the perpetuity of purpose ensured by statutory status for a new Department of Homeland Security. A Department responsible for safeguarding our homeland defense must not be dependent solely on the relationship between a particular President and his or her Homeland Security director. Rather, it must be run as efficiently and effectively as possible under the leadership of a permanent, cabinet level official. That is the only way to achieve the kind of ``continuity of urgency'' the security of our homeland demands. The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford a descent into complacency when it comes to this life-or-death obligation to protect the American people. If ever there were a Federal responsibility, this is it. And while my fervent hope and prayer is that we do not suffer another attack on or anywhere near the scale of 9/11, the reality is that, absent future tragedies and absent a cabinet-level homeland security department, we don't know what kind of attention the issue will receive 5, 10, 20 years down the road. Because the tendency is to focus on the most visible, pressing issues of the day, but we cannot allow ourselves to let down our guard, not for a moment, not a decade from now, not a quarter century from now, never. So this initiative is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is not a passing whim--far from it. There is no serious debate about the fact that we are now in a new age that will not quickly pass. The threat will be pervasive, and enduring. The level of our vigilance must be equally so. Under a new cabinet-level department, responsibility would rest with a Secretary of Homeland Security, a position created under law, who would manage the vital day-to-day functioning of the new department. Critically, this person would have their own budget, while they work closely with the administration to develop and implement policy. It is vital that this budgetary authority be granted--otherwise, the department will become a paper tiger, without the teeth that we all know a separate budget provides in terms of authority as well as the ability to get things done. The bottom line is, I support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security--the largest re-organization of our Government since WWII--because it will centralize our efforts to prevent and respond to any future terrorist attack. Currently, at least 22 agencies and departments play a direct role in homeland security, encompassing over 170,000 people. This legislation consolidates these various responsibilities into one Department which will oversee border security, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency preparedness and response. Overall, the new Department, with the Secretary's leadership, will integrate the vast number of government agencies that formulate, support and carry out the functions critical to homeland security such as the border patrol, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. This new and dynamic Department will utilize all tools and resources of our Government to enhance our homeland security by strengthening and augmenting the preparation, communication, coordination and cooperation of not only the agencies that will be included, but the rest of the government including States and localities. First, it is important to keep in mind that the functions of many of the agencies that will soon become a part of the new Homeland Security Department are integrated so that dividing them would be detrimental to the purpose of that agency, many of which have non-homeland security functions. For example, as a member of the Finance Committee, I shared the concerns raised by other members of the committee about any division of the Customs Service when it relocates to the new Department. I supported the Finance Committee's position that Customs move into Homeland Security but that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the legal authority to issue regulations relating to the customs revenue function. Defending the country's borders and facilitating legitimate trade are intertwined functions that should not be separated. By moving Customs in its entirety into the Border and Transportation Directorate, this legislation recognizes that the personnel who perform trade enforcement and compliance activities at the border are the same personnel who perform inspections for security and other enforcement purposes. In addition, the information Customs receives from trade compliance examinations and manifests is the same information used to assess security risks for shipments. This information is the cornerstone of many of Custom's counter-terrorism efforts. This bill also maintains a cohesive and complete Border and Transportation Security Directorate by transferring all key border and transportation security agencies to this directorate, including the Coast Guard, Customs, and TSA. This includes the Border Patrol and a restructured INS which is not included in the Lieberman bill where it is part of a separate Immigration Directorate. Thus, the Directorate responsible for border security is not responsible for the Border Patrol or inspecting aliens arriving at ports of entry. The same is true for the Coast Guard. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Coast Guard has conducted its largest port security operation since World War II to protect and defend our ports and waterways. But this significant amount of effort is simply not enough. The Coast Guard needs to be positioned with the other transportation and border security agencies if we are going to improve interagency coordination, maximize the effectiveness of our resources, and ensure the Coast Guard receives the intelligence it needs. I strongly believe the Coast Guard is an outstanding role model for Homeland Security and will serve as a cornerstone upon which this new Department will be built. At the same time, these new priorities must not diminish the Coast Guard's focus on its other traditional missions such as marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries law enforcement, and marine environmental protection which are all critically important. The legislative solution I developed with Senators Stevens and Collins, that is included in the bill, strikes the proper balance and ensures the Coast Guard's non-Homeland Security missions will not be compromised by the transfer. To the contrary, our language maintains the primacy of the Coast Guard's diverse missions by assuring the Coast Guard Commandant will report to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, rather than to a deputy secretary; assures no Coast Guard personnel or assets will be transferred to another agency; and provides a mechanism to annually audit the Coast Guard's performance of its non-homeland security missions. I am pleased to see the inclusion of my amendment requiring the administration to report to Congress within 90 days outlining the benefits of accelerating the Coast Guard's Deepwater procurement timeline from 20 years to 10. The Deepwater project, which will recapitalize all of the Coast Guard assets used off of our coast, is already underway. However, the Coast Guard must wait up to 20 years, in some instances, to acquire already existing technology. We must accelerate the Deepwater acquisition project and acquire much needed assets for the Coast Guard now, not 20 years down the road. Of course, securing our homeland requires that we figuratively ``push out our borders'' as far as possible, and that means we must consider the issuance of visas at our overseas embassies as another vital area to be addressed by legislation. After all, consular officers represent the first line of defense against terrorists seeking entry to the U.S. Entering the U.S. is a privilege, not a right, and this must be the attitude of those reviewing visa applications. That is why I am pleased that this bill grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority to determine regulations for issuing visas and provides Homeland Security supervision of this process through the stationing of Homeland Security Department personnel in diplomatic and consular posts abroad. This legislation also builds on a provision I included in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act establishing Terrorist Lookout Committees. These committees, comprised of law enforcement and intelligence agency personnel in our embassies, meet once a month to discuss names of terrorists or potential terrorists to be added to the lookout list. The inclusion of Homeland Security personnel to the Terrorist Lookout Committees will ensure that our first line of defense also has the input of this new Department. I introduced Terrorist Lookout Committee legislation in 1995 as part of my efforts to strengthen our borders and increase information sharing. This, and legislation I introduced to modernize the State Department's antiquated microfiche lookout system, were a result of a trail of errors by our agencies with regard to Sheikh Rahman, the radical Egyptian cleric and mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In working on terrorism and embassy security issues on the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee, what we discovered was startling. We found that the Sheikh had entered and exited the country five times totally unimpeded, even after the State Department formally revoked his visa and even after the INS granted him permanent resident status. In fact, in March of 1992, the INS rescinded that status which was granted in Newark, New Jersey about a year before. But then, unbelievably, the Sheikh requested asylum in a hearing before an immigration judge in the very same city, got a second hearing and continued to remain in the country even after the bombing with the Justice Department rejecting holding Rahman in custody pending the outcome of deportation proceedings and the asylum application, stating that ``in the absence of concrete evidence that Rahman is participating in or involved in planning acts of terrorism, the assumption of that burden, upon the U.S. government, is considered unwarranted.'' Securing our visa process is the reason why legislation I have introduced that requires the new Department to conduct a national security study of the use of foreign nationals in handling and processing visas has been included in this bill. As was shown in Qatar this summer, foreign nationals handling visas are entrusted with a great responsibility and we must make sure that does not compromise our security. For instance, in July it was discovered that several foreign employees at the U.S. Embassy in Qatar may have been involved in a bribery scheme that allowed 71 Middle Eastern men, some with possible ties to al-Qaida, to obtain U.S. visas. To strengthen security, my provision requires the Department of Homeland Security to review the specific role that foreign nationals play in handling visas and determine the security impact this has at each overseas mission and make recommendations as to the role foreign national should have with regard to visas. On this same note, I am also pleased that another provision of mine to stop ``visa shopping'', the practice of a foreign national traveling to different U.S. Embassies in order to find one that will grant a visa, has also been included in this bill. Now, current State Department regulations calling on consular officers to enter a visa denial into the lookout list database so it can be accessed by other Embassies will be codified in law. Seeing that a foreign national has traveled to another Embassy and been denied will make the decision of a consular officer on whether to grant a visa that much simpler. Ensuring that the new Department has its own capabilities to analyze intelligence is critical to the functioning of the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The Directorate will be responsible for accessing, receiving, and analyzing information such as intelligence, law enforcement and other information from agencies from Federal, State and local governments to detect and identify threats to homeland security. The legislation also will ensure that threat analysis, vulnerability assessments, and risk assessments is the responsibility of one Directorate. Also, the bill contains specific language authorizing the Secretary to provide a staff of analysts with ``appropriate expertise and experience'' to assist the Directorate in reviewing and analyzing intelligence as well as making recommendations for improvements. Moreover, the legislation contains specific language I advocated authorizing the Department to hire its own analysts. It is vital that clear language be included to ensure that the new Department has its own people and does not rely solely on detailees from other agencies. The bill also permits the new Department to have personnel detailed for analytical duties from the intelligence community. It is clear that in the beginning, intelligence analysts will have to be detailees from other agencies until additional people can be fully trained. However, this must not be a permanent situation. That is why I worked with Senator Gramm to ensure the new Department has its own intelligence analysts. Finally, one of the most challenging hurdles to overcome in passing this legislation was a provision of law that has been in statute for almost a quarter-century. This provision referred to as the President's ``national security exclusion authority'' allows the President to exclude agencies, or smaller subdivisions within agencies, from collective bargaining agreements if he determines that the agency or subdivision as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work. During this debate, attempts to rescind the President's authority which has been in place since President Kennedy first allowed Federal employees to unionize in 1962 and put into statute by President Carter in 1978 stalled the consideration of the entire bill. I am pleased, however, that both sides were ultimately able to come together to find a workable solution that allows the President to maintain the national security exclusion authority that every President has had since President Kennedy. Once again, the President was right to create a new Department of Homeland Security and I applaud the efforts of Governor Ridge to formulate this proposal and present it to Congress. We need to come to grips with the reality that a repeat attack could happen at any time and, accordingly, not only work to prevent it but also be prepared to respond. The new Department of Homeland Security will bring us closer to bringing all of our Nation's resources to bear in securing our homeland. This defining time, as the President has stressed, requires constant vigilance as our permanent condition. Because in our war against terrorism, to quote Churchill, ``Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.'' We have now begun a ``new normalcy'' and we can never again let down our guard. We owe taking this historic step to the American people and to future generations of Americans to ensure an enduring level of security.