Olympia Snowe

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.

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. Mr. President, like all of my colleagues, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the tragic accident that claimed the life of Senator Wellstone, his wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, two pilots, and three members of Paul's staff. My heart goes out to the families and they will remain in my thoughts and prayers. It was always a privilege working with Senator Wellstone. In fact, one of the last images I have of him was in the final days of the session, when I encountered him coming up the aisle in the Senate Chamber after a vote with his typical boundless energy, warm smile, and friendly greeting. He was a compassionate, honorable man--and it was obvious to all of us that, together, Paul and Sheila made an extraordinary and loving team. As a public servant, Senator Wellstone's most enduring legacy will surely be his career of conscience in elective office. With his unwavering passion and integrity, he was highly respected and will be long remembered. With both of us hailing from northern border States, we shared the same perspective on a number of issues such as the reimportation of prescription drugs, and we worked together over the years to ensure the critical low-income energy program, LIHEAP, would be there for the people of Maine and Minnesota. I was proud to serve with him on the Small Business Committee where I saw his diligence and tenaciousness firsthand, and to work with him on issues of importance to our veterans such as a bill establishing July 16 as a National Day of Remembrance for Atomic Veterans, as well as a measure providing for increases in veterans spending. I was also pleased to help champion his and Senator Domenici's legislation to create mental health parity--a perfect illustration of his compassion and the causes for which he felt duty-bound to fight. Indeed, all of us and, most importantly, the people of Minnesota could count on Paul to stand up for his deeply held beliefs, speaking always from the courage of his convictions. He personified the notion of being able to disagree--even vehemently--without being disagreeable. In fact, I cannot help but recall that when Senators were offering their appreciation to Senator Helms upon the occasion of his retirement, Senator Wellstone offered very heartfelt and touching words. He acknowledged that he and Senator Helms often differed on the issues. But Paul respected the purity of the convictions of his colleague across the aisle--and he wished him well. Now, it is Paul Wellstone who has left our midst, and the entire Senate family shares in the sense of loss. We have a desk that was once filled with Paul's irrepressible spirit, and it strikes me that Paul Wellstone perished in pursuit of the very ideal he held to be so noble and worthy--public service. This institution is always at its strongest when it is populated with men and women of Paul Wellstone's authenticity. We are diminished by his passing, and he will be missed.

Mr. SNOWE

Mr. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly about my support for the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Conference Report and would like to particularly endorse its name as the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 in recognition of the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's 25 years of distinguished service to that Committee. I also acknowledge the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for the leadership he provided in support of the authorization bill, and, of course, the ranking member, Senator John Warner of Virginia, whose tireless efforts on behalf of veterans led to the final agreements that brought this bill to the floor. Let me recognize the efforts of every Senator on the Committee. As a former member of that committee, I well understand the long hours and persistent effort needed to move this vital bipartisan legislation. The conference report takes great strides toward improving the quality of service for our dedicated men and women of the military, modernizing our armed services, and making our homeland safe. Because we recognize that our service members are our most valuable asset, this legislation makes a solid investment in their quality of life by increasing pay and enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty military members and their family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at home and abroad in this dangerous and deadly post-September 11 world. This legislation recognizes that we also owe a continuing debt to those who have served honorably by finally granting combat-wounded military retirees the same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee--the ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements without offsets. There is much work to be done before we achieve the full equity of concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees, but as Senator Warner has appropriately noted, we have established a ``beachhead'' for this issue. I do find it regrettable, however, that the conference report does not complete the job of overturning the ban on privately funded abortion services in overseas military hospitals for military women and dependents based overseas, which was reinstated in the Fiscal Year 1996 authorization bill. This is a ban that, without merit or reason, puts the reproductive health of these women at risk . . . a ban that the Senate voted to overturn in June by a vote of 52-40. Sadly, this is the second time that this policy change, which has been supported by the majority of the Senate, has fallen victim to the conference committee process. This ban continues to be a threat to more than just the freedoms of American military women overseas, it's also a threat to their health because it places them at the mercy of the local health care infrastructure in whatever country that they are based. While I support this conference report, I remain deeply disappointed that the conference did not include this critical change of policy regarding this arbitrary ban. As for modernizing our forces, let me speak on an area that is critical to the security of the Nation--shipbuilding. We are learning that in order to effectively engage the forces of terror wherever they hide, we must have the ability to project our power immediately to any part of the globe. Today, we can do that by dispatching our forces in carrier battle groups or amphibious ready groups. However, as a former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remained concerned, as I know the committee is, about the continuing decline in shipbuilding investments made by the Navy. I note the conferees included detailed language about the Navy's ship acquisition program and completely agree with their conclusion that, without a fully vetted long range ship-building program, we will be faced with a Navy that is unable to carry out the missions assigned to them in both the short-term and the long-term. To quote the report, ``Absent more immediate investment, DOD will have to reduce the number or scope of missions assigned to Navy ships. Witnesses have testified that, if neither course is incorporated in future Navy budget programs, the men and women of the Navy and the Marine Corps will bear the burden of these decisions through some combination of longer deployments and less time at home between deployments.'' I find that very troubling indeed in these dangerous times. Therefore, I am encouraged this legislation mandates stronger shipbuilding funding and construction in the future years. Provisions such as section 1022 that requires the Navy to submit an annual 30 year shipbuilding plan with their budget request will not only assist us in understanding the Navy's ship recapitalization plan but will ensure that the Department of Defense and Navy are committed to buying the number and type of ships necessary to fulfill all of their missions. I am also pleased that this authorization provides $2.4 billion for the construction of two DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers and extends through fiscal year 2007 the multi-year procurement authority for that class. For it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships we are deploying to the Persian Gulf to prosecute the war on terrorism. Surface combatants are the backbone of our Navy and I support section 1021 that requires the Secretary of the Navy to notify Congress should the number of active and reserve surface combatant ships drop below 116. The legislation also looks to the future by authorizing almost $970 million for the development of technologies to be incorporated into the next generation of surface combatant, the DD(X) land attack destroyer. Moreover, it adds $5 million for the DDG Destroyer Optimized Manning Initiative, a Navy effort to enhance the operational effectiveness of Aegis destroyers with new technologies, policies and procedures to significantly reduce crew workload and improve readiness. The legislation authorizes $10.4 billion, $376 million more than requested, for science and technology programs including many that will be performed in Maine to protect our troops and our homeland such as the project designed to help identify and address the needs of military personnel in the event of a biowarfare attack. Of potentially significant value to the Navy, it authorizes $1 million for research at the University of Maine aimed at developing a specialized structural reliability analysis process to optimize the use of polymers in future ship construction, and provides $5 million in funding for development of a Small Kill Vehicle Technology, aimed at improving the accuracy of missile and anti-missile technology. Furthermore, among the more critical provisions of this legislation are those aimed at protecting our homeland. It provides the President with $10 billion for the war against terrorism including $4.3 billion for military operations and $1 billion for equipment replacement and upgrades to military capabilities. And finally, the legislation includes almost $1 billion for Chem-Bio programs designed to provide advanced individual protection and equipment to detect and decontaminate chemical and biological agents, as well as an additional $480 million for DoD homeland security and consequence management. This authorization provides the men and women of our armed forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the quality of life they have earned and security for their families. I have been proud to support this legislation because in a year when our Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can do no less.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation before the Senate which is designed to overhaul port security in this Nation. Port security is a national imperative in the wake of September 11. Frankly, I think it is regrettable that it has taken us this long to get to this point. After all, like aviation security, port security is national security, and it must now be viewed as such. We have to assume that every facet of our transportation system remains a target for terrorism. Last year, we moved swiftly in an effort to close many of the gaps in our aviation security system, but we still have a long way to go on port and maritime security. We cannot underestimate the importance of this issue. A terrorist attack at a major port could cost countless lives and have a devastating impact on the national and global economy. As U.S. Customs Service Commissioner Robert Bonner said recently, ``if terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it on arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating--all nations would be affected.'' At the same time, the 2000 interagency commission report found the state of security in U.S. seaports generally ranges from poor to fair. Remember, our ports link us to the world. They serve a crucial purpose. They give us access to global markets. Ships carry goods totaling 95 percent of our foreign trade, excluding that with Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, the volume of goods passing through our ports is expected to double in the next 20 years. United States waters also sustain a $24 billion commercial fishing industry and a $71 billion recreational and tourism industry. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the port security conference committee, I am aware of the important responsibility we have to turn this situation around. And we can only achieve this with a comprehensive, exhaustive approach that recognizes that the entire system is only as strong as its weakest link. The conference report before us today represents a multifaceted approach that runs the gamut and sets the stage for a complete reevaluation of port security from the ground up. We have an incredible amount of collective talent and experience in this country, and I hope that it can all be brought together to effect the kind of changes we need to fix the deficiencies brought tragically home by 9/11. First and foremost, it is vital that we ensure that the sum total of the knowledge and resources of Federal, State, and local governments are brought to bear to both prevent disasters and respond to them. In that light, coordination is critical, and the measure before us today provides for greater coordination in this regard. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we saw outstanding responses at the local level, but these actions were ad hoc--there were no national, standardized directives that could have been quickly disseminated and uniformly understood and applied--in contrast to the FAA directive to ground all planes, which was enormously successful. Well, I do not think there is any doubt we can no longer afford such a piecemeal approach--if we are talking about our national security, which we are, we are talking about the need to establish a national response. To confront the challenge of terrorism aimed at our maritime sector, we need better information, better information sharing, and more coordination. We need to enhance our ability to track cargo, and know what is being moved, with more inspectors, and improved technology. And we need stringent international standards, so we stop terrorist plots before they reach our shores. Security coordination between Federal, State, and local authorities has been one of my top priorities in the aftermath of September 11, and I am pleased that the conference report greatly enhances coordination with respect to port security. The bill requires comprehensive security and incident response plans for the Nation's 361 commercial seaports. It also establishes a national maritime security committee and local maritime security committees at each local port to better coordinate efforts and share critical information and intelligence. I am particularly pleased that the conference report includes provisions that build on legislation I introduced last fall to require ships to electronically send their cargo manifests to a port before gaining clearance to enter. The port security conference report expands on cargo security measures contained in the Trade Act of 2002 by requiring that cargo and crew member information be relayed to port security authorities prior to a cargo carrier's arrival in the United States. The U.S. Customs Service would determine how far in advance to require such pre-arrival information. The bill will also provide grants to local port security authorities, as well as $15 million annually during fiscal years 2003 through 2008 for research and development grants for port security. I have seen firsthand how important these port security grants are. In my home State of Maine, the city of Portland recently received a Federal grant of $175,000 for port security upgrades. However, the fact is that ports in Maine and across the country still need additional security-related funding. The conference report also addresses the complex issue of access to secure areas of a port by requiring the Secretary of Transportation to design a comprehensive credentialing process for port workers. The bill establishes a national standard for biometric security cards for transportation workers, and would allow the Secretary to determine whether an individual posed enough of a security risk to be denied an identification card. Finally, as ranking member of the commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, I am please that this conference agreement includes provisions from my Coast Guard authorization bill. The conference report will provide the Coast Guard with the funding and personnel authorization levels it needs as well as over 30 other provisions important to the Coast Guard and the maritime community. This is the first time the Coast Guard has had an authorization bill since 1998 and it was drafted to provide the Coast Guard with the tools it needs to operate in our post-September 11 reality. The legislation provides a 1-year authorization for the Coast Guard to reflect the agency's changing priorities since September 11, including authorization for $1 billion in new funding, as President Bush proposed in Portland, ME in February, and the authority to hire 5,500 new personnel to meet both its new homeland security needs as well as carry out its other traditional missions. This bill also includes numerous measures which will improve the Coast Guard's ability to recruit, reward, and retain high-quality personnel. It addresses various Coast Guard personnel management and quality of life issues such as promotions, retention, housing authorities, and education. Last year alone, the Coast Guard responded to over 40,000 calls for assistance, assisted $1.4 billion in property, and saved 3,355 lives. These brave men and women risk their lives to defend our borders from drugs, illegal immigrants, and other national security threats. In 2001, the Coast Guard seized a record 132,920 pounds of cocaine and 50,000 pounds of marijuana, preventing these substances from reaching our streets and playgrounds. they also stopped 4,210 illegal migrants from reaching our shores. They conducted patrols to protect our vital fisheries stocks and they responded to over 11,000 pollution incidents. And in the wake of September 11, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working harder than ever in the service's largest peacetime port security operation since World War II. These operations are all critical to defending our country, protecting our borders, preserving our environment, saving lives, and ensuring commerce moves safely through our waters. As a conferee on this bill, I am proud of the work we have done, and that we are sending a strong and meaningful port security bill to the President. We know full well that the world has changed, and seaport security cannot be taken for granted. We also know that our transportation system must be secure if we are to move the Nation forward, and also ensure that we are in a position of strength to be able to wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. So I urge all my colleagues to offer a strong show up support for this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I respond to some of the issues raised by the Senator from Montana, for whom I have a great deal of respect. It is important to clarify some of the issues suggested by the Senator regarding the legislation I and others have proposed, the tripartisan legislation. The Senator from Montana did schedule meetings in his office with Senators from both sides of the political aisle, Senators who were very concerned about the legislation. Obviously, there were differences among all the Senators. We were trying to narrow the areas of differences. I was surprised by the characterization suggested by the Senator with respect to those meetings. He had established the agenda. In fact, he asked everyone at the meetings, what should be the basis for negotiations? What should be the starting point for discussions? It was agreed by those in the room, when he initiated the question, that the tripartisan legislation should be the basis for the discussion and negotiation. The staff had been given instructions to develop language with respect to the three areas in which we had identified to be the major areas in disagreement. One was the assets test, one was the cost, and one was the fallback provisions as to whether or not the provision included in the tripartisan package was in and of itself sufficient to guarantee prescription drug coverage to a senior, regardless of where they lived in America. We thought our language certainly met the conditions for ensuring that our Nation's seniors, regardless of whether they lived in an urban or rural area, would have the benefit of a prescription drug coverage as designed in our legislation. But we were certainly amenable to additional language, additional protection in the legislation to absolutely guarantee we would provide seamless coverage in the event that an insurer was not providing the options for prescription drug coverage to seniors in a particular area of the country for whatever reason. So no matter what, a senior would have the benefit of the coverage, regardless of where they lived, and they would have a choice of at least two plans, so we were more than amenable. We were amenable even on the price tag. We were considering language on the acid test. The chairman did not reconvene meetings after assigning the staff with the responsibility of drafting the new legislation. We were never given reasons no additional meetings were scheduled. In the meantime, markups were scheduled in the Finance Committee this fall on various issues, including the provider give-back. We said we intend to offer the tripartisan package because that had the support of Senator Grassley, who worked on it a year and a half ago; Senator Jeffords from Vermont, a member of the committee; Senator Breaux from Louisiana; and myself as a member of the Finance Committee. We would offer that as an amendment and see where the process takes us in Finance Committee. The markups were canceled. If our bill was not going anyplace, as the chairman suggests, then why were the markups canceled? If our bill had no opportunity to go anyplace, why were the markups canceled? Is it because these four members of the Finance Committee had at least offered a basis for a bipartisan--in this case a tripartisan--comprehensive prescription drug package? We did not say it was all or nothing. We did not suggest inflexibility or intransigence on our part. We say let's offer this as a basis for amendment, further consideration, and debate and votes. The same was true in the unanimous consent request I presented on the floor that was ultimately rejected. It says ``be open to further amendment and debate.'' That does not suggest inflexibility. I didn't say take tripartisan package or nothing. I am saying the only way you work things out is being able to bring up the bill and offer amendments and debate and vote on the amendments and reach a final conclusion. Now we are talking about July.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. In response to what the majority whip mentioned, the fact is that we had the opportunity and the time. The motion that I offered with respect to the Medicare-provided give-back legislation and the prescription drug benefit is including further amendments and debate. That is all we are asking, to have the opportunity to debate and amend a package on the floor of the Senate that gives our Nation's seniors the option of having a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program. It is not a question of whether I protest too much. I can assure you, our Nation's seniors will protest when they learn about the failure of this institution to pass any prescription drug benefit. We were close to working out our differences on the few issues that really did separate us on the two packages that were before the Senate back in July. It really came down to several different issues. We had ongoing negotiations, even including additional Members who had been working on this issue before, because we were reaching out. We were close to reaching an agreement, whether it was on the cost or the fallback, to ensure every senior had the option and the access to a prescription drug benefit that was designed in that program, regardless of where they lived in America, so no one would be denied. We were close to reaching that consensus. But for some unexplainable reason, further negotiations were suspended. That was regrettable because we could have been at a point where we could have enacted a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program. When I asked for this unanimous consent, it was to also include the opportunity for the Senate to amend and debate this legislation. We do have the time. If we have the time to bring up Medicare provider give- back legislation of more than $43 billion, then clearly we also have the time to consider a prescription drug bill. Then, I would argue, we are even further along in this institution in examining all of the components and provisions and the issues surrounding the development of a comprehensive universal package. We are much further ahead because we did have debate on the two proposals on the floor, but we didn't have the opportunity to amend our various packages. It was up or down, all or nothing, either/or, take it or leave it, get the 60 votes or not-- not expressing our will through the conventional procedures of this institution. I cite again the example of the tax-cut measure we ultimately adopted in the Senate back in May of 2001. It required several days. In that case, there were 50 amendments. But we expressed ourselves. We had the opportunity to offer amendments and then ultimately vote on a final package, yes or no. That is not the same opportunity that has been given to this issue. Our Nation's seniors deserve to know that. They also deserve to consider both of these initiatives in tandem. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument as to why we can't do that, why we cannot include both of these initiatives in one package, similar to what the House of Representatives did months ago. We should be able to do the same thing in the Senate, send the package to the conference, and work out the issues. Believe me, there is great urgency to obviously resolve both of these initiatives to reach a final conclusion. I think there is genuine interest on both sides of the political aisle here in this institution and on the other side to work these issues out in the final and remaining days of this Congress. But to say it can't be done, tell that to our Nation's seniors. Voting on an issue means nothing unless you produce results. Results means taking final action on a piece of legislation that is sent to the President of the United States. The President is eager to have legislation that can be signed into law to give this much-needed benefit to our senior citizens. We can do it. I hope the Senate will recognize it is a very reasonable unanimous consent request. I hope they will reconsider their objection to this request.

Ms. SNOWE. I hope the Senator would reconsider his objection to my unanimous consent request because this motion really is asking to include both issues in one package in tandem and to be able to further amend and debate. I think it is a reasonable request, and it is one that should not be denied.

Ms. SNOWE. We didn't have an opportunity to talk about the language the staff was instructed to draft in these three areas.

Ms. SNOWE. I am glad to have the Senator respond.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like to pose a question to the Senator from Montana as to why we didn't have any additional meetings based on your instructions to the staff to work out language in the various areas? I didn't sense there was inability to reach a consensus. It might well have been, after we considered and pondered the legislative language they were drafting, language over the weekend. We didn't have the opportunity to talk about those issues.

Ms. SNOWE. I would like----

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in response to the points made by the Senator from Nevada, obviously the minority do not design the floor schedule. That is the prerogative of the majority. The minority did not preclude the Finance Committee from marking up this legislation. We did not choose to postpone the consideration of a prescription drug package in the Finance Committee. The Senator from Nevada would acknowledge a markup in the Finance Committee was important and essential to achieving the consensus that is so critical in passing any significant piece of legislation. In this instance, we are discussing a package that represents more than $400 billion over the next 10 years. Mr. President, I think everybody would agree the Finance Committee should have had the opportunity to consider that initiative. I cannot think of the last time that creating a new benefit, a new package, or a new program that represents close to $400 billion over the next 10 years, has not had the benefit of a markup in the committee--at least, if you are thinking about enhancing the ability to create the consensus for the final passage of that legislation. So the process was circumvented, for whatever reason, I do not know. But what I do know is what is possible today. I do know if we had the political will, we could resolve the few differences between the positions that were offered on the floor back in July that, regrettably, we didn't have the opportunity to amend or further amend. It was, again, as I said, up or down, either/or, all or nothing. Well, you cannot achieve cooperation and consensus on a major package of this kind without working through the various issues. So all I am asking is we have the opportunity to consider a prescription drug benefit in tandem with the Medicare provider give- back. If we have time to provide $43 billion in additional assistance to Medicare providers--and I would wholeheartedly support that, but I also would support providing prescription drug coverage to our Nation's seniors. How can we do one without the other? I have not heard an explanation I think would be acceptable to the senior citizens of this country. We didn't have time? Well, where have we been over the last 2 years? We didn't have time, Mr. President? I don't think that is acceptable. How does anybody go home and say to their constituents we didn't have time--especially because that has been the rationale given for the last 4 years: we will put it on to the next Congress. We are elected to do what is important here and now. That is our obligation. If we have to stay here day and night, through the weekend, what greater obligation do we have than to do what is important to the people we represent? This is an issue that has been acknowledged by both sides to be one of our top domestic priorities, and we are saying we don't have time. We don't have time in the committee. We didn't have time in the committee last July. We didn't have time in the committee last spring. We have not had time. When do we have time around here, Mr. President? When do we have time to do what is right in this institution? When do we have time? How do we do it? We had a tripartisan group from the Senate Finance Committee begin to work on this issue a year ago--I would say in June, and we announced our principles a year ago July--to avoid this type of political showdown, to avoid the all-or-nothing confrontation that seems to pervade this institution. Guess what. We are denied the ability to mark up this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Well, I might be protesting too much, but, frankly, I think our Nation's seniors deserve better. I know they are protesting. Tell them we don't have time. Explain to them why we didn't have a markup in the committee that would have increased the likelihood of the passage of this legislation. Now we are hearing we should have this Medicare provider give-back. I endorse that, but I don't believe these are mutually exclusive issues. I want to make that clear. These are not mutually exclusive items. Obviously, AARP agrees because of the letter they sent to the legislative leadership, the committee leadership, and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, that you should not do one without the other. I am speaking on behalf of the seniors I represent in my State of Maine. They deserve better. I hope the Senator from Nevada will reconsider, so we have the ability here and now to consider the provider give-back benefit, and if the Senator indicates there is general unanimous agreement to provide that, then we can focus on the prescription drug benefit and on the few areas we have identified to be the issues in disagreement between what was offered by Senator Graham and the tripartisan package offered by the Senator from Iowa, Senator Breaux from Louisiana, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, and myself. We can do that. I hope I will hear that message today. Let's begin here and now.

Ms. SNOWE. In response to what the Senator from Montana indicated, let me say this. Obviously I am not privy to his private conversations, but we were sitting in those meetings in good faith, and I didn't hear from anybody around that table--more than 14 Members--who resisted the idea we should not proceed, that we should not work out these areas, that it was impossible. Maybe in the final analysis, it might have been impossible, but that certainly was not the expression of the sentiment in that meeting during that course of time. The fact is quite the contrary. I think most of the Senators--as I said, it was equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, including Senator Jeffords from Vermont. There was an indication of strong interest to proceed to try to see if we could work through and resolve the identified areas in disagreement. Those are the ones I mentioned previously. So I didn't hear any indication there was a ``can't do'' attitude. In fact, just the contrary. They were suggesting we could proceed and instructed the staff to work over the weekend on those various areas. Suffice it to say we didn't have the process in the committee to work these through. Obviously, for whatever reasons, it did not work out as a result of those negotiations. But they were, I think, very close. I think we were very close. I know if those individuals sitting around the table had agreed in these areas, we certainly could have overcome any political obstacles and impediments here in the Chamber because I think there is virtually unanimous desire to get something done on behalf of our Nation's seniors. I cannot imagine anybody here in the Senate would want to tell their seniors that somehow it could not be done. We are elected to get things done. We are responsible for ensuring this institution functions in a way that does dignity to the process. Unfortunately, I think in this instance we failed. I happen to believe on the Medicare provider give-back, if we were somehow to be able to resolve those differences behind closed doors, without a markup and on the floor, then clearly we should be able to do what has been deemed to be the impossible--the impossible in this institution--in advancing this legislation in the interests of our Nation's seniors. In fact, we invited the AARP to be part of our negotiations this fall to talk about some of the issues. Yes, they had concerns with the tripartisan bill, as they did with the bill that had been offered by Senator Graham, in providing an unfunded mandate on States. But the fact is, who is to say any legislation is perfect? We certainly didn't indicate ours was. This is the agreement we had reached. We were prepared to accept amendments and to consider different ideas. That is where we were in these meetings that were scheduled by the Senator from Montana in his office. Ultimately, there were not additional meetings, even though the staff had been instructed to draft language in the three areas I mentioned originally. The fact is, this failure is at whose expense? It is at our Nation's seniors' expense. As prescription drug prices go up each and every year by more than 15 percent, it is 2\1/2\ times faster than the cost of additional health care components. By 2011, the prescription drug spending is expected to be 15 percent of all health care spending in America. Rising prescription drug costs have made prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries less available and more expensive. We have seen employer-sponsored retiree health plans provide 28 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage, more than any other source. It is a major source of prescription drug coverage for our Nation's seniors. Now what are we finding? Far fewer employers are offering coverage to their employees. Those employers who continue to do so are requiring seniors to pick up a larger share of the costs. That is what we are talking about. The proportion of larger employers offering retiree health benefits dropped from 31 percent to 23 percent between the years 1997 to 2001. Those who were requiring Medicare-eligible retirees to pay the full cost of their coverage rose from 27 percent to 31 percent. Those are not my figures. Those are the figures that have been given by the GAO, that have been certified. Certainly I think they underscore the costs of prescription drugs to our Nation's seniors and, I think, the challenges we face in this country if we fail to address this most serious problem. As AARP indicated in its own letter, the costs of prescription drugs are going up, as was said, more than 15 percent on an annual basis. These added costs to beneficiaries, as we have seen, because the Medicare provider give-back is going to increase part B premiums. There is no question about that. So that is going to raise the premium $6 billion in the first 5 years alone. These added costs, as they said in their letter recently, come in addition to double-digit hikes in prescription drug costs for older and disabled Americans, many of whom have little or no options for drug coverage. Employers continue to reduce or eliminate health care coverage. Medigap premiums continue to rise. And now, nine more Medicare+Choice plans are pulling out of Medicare. So, you see, we do have an obligation to do what is right. I would not be standing here today insisting on getting this done if I didn't think it was possible. That is because I have had a number of conversations with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on different sides of the issues, different philosophies. Many have indicated they are prepared to make concessions and develop compromise and consensus on this issue to get it done here and now. I agree with the statement that was made by the Senator from West Virginia with respect to the provider give-back legislation, I think it is necessary for our Nation's hospitals and home health care. So is this. They are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in glove for our nation's seniors. I have toured many of the hospitals in my State. I have heard firsthand from seniors in my State about the plight of some who have gone without prescription drug coverage. I was told a story about a man who had diabetes and was supposed to take his medication and couldn't take his medication. He knew what that would lead to. He didn't have prescription drug coverage. So he was unable to take the medication prescribed by his doctor after he was released from the hospital. He had diabetes which ultimately led to amputation and ultimately to his death. Those are the kinds of tragic stories we hear over and over again. Those are choices our seniors shouldn't have to make. We have the time. We have the time to do what is right.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am deeply disheartened by what I am hearing today, the refusal to refer the Medicare provider give-back legislation to the Finance Committee for the deliberation and the consideration it deserves. Time and again this Senate has circumvented the traditional and conventional procedures to undermine the possibility of enacting a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. It is clear to me if my colleague from the other side of the aisle wish to achieve and accomplish a victory for our Nation's seniors, they will work with me and others--the Senator from Oklahoma, those of us who worked on this legislation in the committee--who crafted a tripartisan package to provide comprehensive prescription drug coverage for our Nation's seniors. The Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, Senator Breaux from Louisiana, Senator Grassley from Iowa, the ranking member of the committee, worked together. We could make it possible. I am deeply disappointed by what I am hearing today. Again, it gets back to the all-or-nothing proposition. Some have said, we have already had votes on this issue. What does that have to do with our Nation's seniors who are denied the possibility of having a prescription drug benefit included in their Medicare package? That is who we should be talking about today. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We can do both. It is possible to do the Medicare provider give-back package the Senator from Montana is referring to. It is also possible to do a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors and include it in one package. There is no reason we have to be in any other situation than including and considering these issues in tandem. That is the desire of the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. That is my desire. That is the desire of our Nation's seniors. In fact, it is the desire of the largest organization that represent our Nation's seniors, AARP. I know the letter has already been printed in the Record, but I will read it. It is important to read. The legislative session is drawing to a close with no Medicare drug coverage in sight. Once again, after years of waiting and with drug costs soaring, beneficiaries and their families find that they get no help from Congress. What they face instead is yet another round of provider ``givebacks'' that will raise their Part B premiums. The provider pay hikes enacted in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) and the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) are already costing beneficiaries $14 billion over ten years in higher Part B premiums. The over $40 billion givebacks package being considered by the Senate will raise Part B premiums even higher--$6 billion in the first five years alone. Less than 10 percent of that package would directly benefit Medicare beneficiaries--the people the program is supposed to be serving. These added costs to beneficiaries come in addition to double-digit hikes in prescription drug costs for older and disabled Americans, many of whom have little or no options for drug coverage. Employers continue to reduce or eliminate health care coverage. Medigap premiums continue to rise. And now, nine more Medicare+Choice plans are pulling out of Medicare. AARP opposes giveback provisions without drug coverage in Medicare, and our 35 million members will not understand how the Senate can take this course of action. Our members want providers who treat Medicare patients to be paid fairly. Errors of miscalculations in Medicare payment formulas should be corrected. Fiscal relief to states to avoid drastic Medicaid cuts should be addressed. Those can be done for much less than $40 billion. The fact is AARP, our Nation's largest organization that represents the seniors' interest, is opposed to passing a give-back program without including a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. Mr. President, we have the opportunity. Yes, we have the time. Over the last month, there have been a number of hearings and markups that have been scheduled in the Finance Committee. They have then been canceled on a variety of pieces of legislation, including the Medicare give-back. I and others in the committee, and Senator Breaux, were planning to offer an amendment to the Medicare provider give-back more than a month ago again when that legislation was scheduled for markup in the Finance Committee which is appropriate because that is the committee of jurisdiction. We intended to offer an amendment to that legislation. Then the markup was canceled. There were a variety of other markups that were scheduled in the Finance Committee over this last month on various issues. Again, we were saying if we can have time to consider these other important pieces of legislation, clearly we should have the opportunity and we have the time to consider a prescription drug package. Now, you might say, we had votes in July on this issue in the Senate. That is true. Did the Finance Committee have a markup on the prescription drug bill? The answer is an unequivocal no. I can't state why. The Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, did not have a markup on a bill I think virtually everybody in this Chamber would agree is one of our Nation's top domestic priorities. Everyone would agree with that. So you might ask, why didn't the committee have a markup, going through the conventional procedures, so that both sides have the chance to deliberate, to amend, debate, and vote upon a package? It is a very good question, a question to which I do not have an answer. Yet I have never had an answer. This is close to a $400 billion package that would provide prescription drug coverage to our Nation's seniors. Yet we did not have a markup. That clearly undermined our ability to achieve a consensus on this legislation. You could take the tax-cut legislation in the year 2001. No one knew what the end result of that bill would be when it came before the Finance Committee. We had the ability over several days to amend it, debate it, and vote upon the various issues the Members had presented to the committee. Ultimately we voted on a package. It came to the floor. We had more amendments. We had more than 50 amendments to the tax cut bill because we had the right and the prerogative to express our positions and our views of the States that we represent. During the natural course of the legislative procedure, we had the ability to express ourselves on that very important piece of legislation and then ultimately vote for its enactment. The same was not true when it came to this significant issue that affects most of our Nation's seniors. So it became an either/or approach. What I am saying today is let's take the Medicare provider give-back legislation and let's have the opportunity to also consider an amendment--amendments to that legislation that would include a prescription drug package. I will make a unanimous consent request shortly on that issue. But I think we have the time, we have the ability to do both in this Chamber right now. The question is, Do we have the political will? Some people, as I said earlier, say we have voted on this issue. It is not about us. It is not about us. The last time I checked, Members of the Senate had health care coverage that included prescription drug coverage. It is about our Nation's seniors, and it is making this institution work on behalf of the people we represent. Each of us have an individual and collective responsibility to make that happen. It is a true failure on our part that we did not make this possible. We worked a year and a half ago--the Senator from Vermont is here, Mr. Jeffords, and Senator Breaux from Louisiana, Senator Grassley and I worked--more than a year and a half ago to begin the process of shaping a comprehensive package so we could include this significant benefit in the Medicare Program to avoid political collisions, to avoid the scenario that has now manifested itself in this institution on this particular issue. But what we got instead was denial and obstruction and circumvention of the conventional processes of this Senate--No. 1, because we did not have a markup in the Finance Committee; and, No. 2, it was an up-or- down vote in the Senate floor on two packages, no amendments. So we did not have the ability to work through our differences, work through the concerns that each of us might have in terms of how do we shape this most significant benefit that nobody denies the seniors deserve and desperately need. No one is denying that. So what is impossible about doing it right here and now? If we have had time over the last few months to schedule markups in the committee on various initiatives, including the Medicare provider give-back, then why don't we have the time to also include, in conjunction with those bills, a prescription drug coverage? How can we fulfill our commitment to our Nation's seniors if we fail to do that in this session of this Congress? And to provide a provider give-back bill that I certainly support, but also one that raises Part B premiums? It raises Part B premiums. And that is not my estimate. That is the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. What we are saying is, recognizing the impact that will have on our Nation's seniors and the costs to them directly, when you raise Part B premiums, you are obviously going to have to pay more of their out-of- pocket costs for their Medicare coverage. So why then are we not also considering a prescription drug benefit to ease the impact of the cost to our Nation's seniors, if they can even pay? Even if they can afford to pay out-of-pocket costs for their drugs. But most, as we know, are forced to choose between food and paying for their prescription drugs prescribed by their doctors. I believe we have a greater obligation. We have a greater obligation to build upon the support of both goals here today. I hope we will be able to do that. That is why I think it is so clear that we do not have to end this session this way. If we had the ability to consider a $43 billion package that provides reimbursements to our rural hospitals and home health care, to medical providers--and they, too, will acknowledge how imperative this benefit is to our Nation's seniors--they certainly would welcome the Senate's action on both pieces of legislation in tandem. The House of Representatives passed, months ago, both a prescription drug bill and a Medicare provider give-back. While some may have differences in this Chamber with what direction and what provisions they included in that package, they ultimately passed a package that included both initiatives. I happen to believe that we have a greater obligation to do the same. I don't think we can use the rationale that we are here at this point in time and that we do not have the time anymore. Let's send this back to committee. I regret the Senator from Montana objected to the request made by the Senator from Oklahoma to refer this back to the committee. We have the next couple of days. We are going to be here. We may be here next week. We have the ability to mark up this legislation, both the provider give-back and the prescription drug bill--we have the time--and then report it back to the floor so each of us have the opportunity again to debate and amend, if at all possible, on various issues, and have a final vote. I think we should try to work together to advance a viable, comprehensive prescription drug plan that warrants strong bipartisan support. We developed a tripartisan package beginning more than a year and a half ago. We announced our principles a year ago July, setting out the framework so we would avoid the political collisions and the polarization and partisanship that seem to be the monkey wrenches grinding this legislative process to a halt. But again, I guess it was not sufficient to overcome those impediments. Those negotiations we did have during the course of the summer, even in the aftermath of the votes that were taken, the up-or- down votes on the two packages--one by Senator Graham, one that was offered by those of us who represented the tripartisan plan--we even had negotiations this fall. We all felt a breakthrough compromise was near. The foundation of that compromise was going to be, in fact, the tripartisan package. In fact, we had one of the meetings that was chaired by the Senator from Montana that included more than 14 Senators, almost equally divided across the political aisle. We were really focusing on the several issues that really did represent the areas of disagreement. Somehow the meetings were canceled. No explanation was given. This is all the more unfortunate and disappointing because I think we did have a sense of agreement. The bottom line is we have never been closer than we were in September of providing this package--a universal, comprehensive Medicaid benefit for our Nation's seniors. The basis of a consensus package exists today. I hope we can agree today to do both. I am committed to doing that. I know there are others here who are committed in this Senate to do what is right for our Nation's seniors. We can argue about not having the time. Tell that to our Nation's seniors--that we just didn't have time. We have time for other issues, but we don't have time for our Nation's seniors when it comes to this vital benefit that can make the difference between life and death. We have all heard the traumatic stories and circumstances that many of our Nation's seniors have been placed in because they do not have the kind of coverage that is extended to each of us here in this institution. I happened to come across a poll not too long ago. It says when asked, Should senior Americans have the right to choose between different health care plans with different benefits just like Members of Congress and Federal employees? Of course 90 percent said, yes, they want to have that choice. They want to be able to choose in their Medicare benefit package prescription drug coverage. They would have a choice under the tripartisan package. They could choose the traditional Medicare Program, the new enhanced fee-for-service program, or the Medicare+Choice. But whichever program they would choose, they would have the option of a prescription drug benefit. That is the way it should be. We all know the Medicare Program was developed almost 40 years ago. It needs to be reformed and overhauled in a way that modernizes and reflects the kind of health care that seniors are getting today. But some say the traditional program works, and they should have that option and benefit. If they want a new, enhanced fee-for-service that also includes prescription drug coverage, they should have that benefit. But the fact is they should have a choice. We are told, ``the next Congress.'' I have been hearing that every Congress. As far as I can check, we have been talking about this for almost the last 4 years or more--the next Congress; the next year. It is here and now that we have an obligation. We have an obligation to do it now. AARP is right in saying that you can't do one without the other-- especially because it has the impact on increasing our Nation's seniors' Part B premiums. That, of course, has been underscored by the Congressional Budget Office as well--that it will raise the cost of Part B premiums as a result of this give-back bill. If we are going to do the give-back--and I wholeheartedly support that--then we also have a responsibility to provide this most critical coverage to our Nation's seniors. It would be a terrible oversight if we fail to do what is right. This action is warranted. Seniors cannot put off their illnesses, and we must not put off a solution. I come to the floor to offer a proposal that we consider not only Senator Baucus' legislation and provide for his legislation but also the tripartisan prescription drug package. I made a commitment to our Nation's seniors that I would protect their interests and do everything possible to pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Now is the time to be giving that consideration. To say that we don't have time is really failing our Nation's seniors. We do have time. We have time because we are considering the Medicare-provided give-back. We have time because a number of markups were scheduled before the Senate Finance Committee, and they were canceled. But there was obviously time that was included on the schedule for the members of the committees to consider other pieces of legislation for markup in committee. I don't object to that. But what I object to is denying our Nation's seniors the ability to have a prescription drug benefit because we are denied the ability to give voice to that benefit and to express our will through the traditional procedures of the committee and here on the floor of the Senate. I regret that the majority leader will not allow a vote and a vote on an amendment and consideration on both issues in tandem. We could do it in the committee and bring it to the floor. That is certainly what I would prefer. But if not, we ought to be able to consider both of these initiatives before the full Senate. We should let the process work the way it is designed because our Nation's seniors deserve at least that. Unanimous Consent Request I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately turn to the consideration of S. 2; that following the reporting by the clerk, a substitute amendment at the desk which contains the text of S. 3018, the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002, and S. 2, the 21st Century Medicare Act, be considered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the bill then be open to further amendment and debate.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation introduced by Senator Cleland, S. 1739, which seeks to improve security on motorcoaches and over-the-road buses nationwide. I became a cosponsor of S. 1739 in the wake of a September 30 attack in which two people were killed and more than two dozen others injured after a Greyhound bus skidded off a California highway. The bus driver had been stabbed in the throat by a passenger. While it quickly became known that the incident had no links to terrorism, it served as a stark reminder that a significant part of America's transportation network remains vulnerable to attack. Every year, motorcoaches and over-the-road buses carried an estimated 800 million passengers to 4,000 communities nationwide, far in excess of the passenger load carried by the airlines or Amtrak. I believe that it is vitally important that we address bus security concerns highlighted by the recent attack. A critical component in our fight against terrorism is protecting the security of our transportation system, including buses. We have to assume that any facet of our transportation system remains a target for violence. Terrorists in Israel have targeted buses with deadly effectiveness. So we have to take steps, like S. 1739, which will move us toward a more secure system across every mode of transportation and across our transportation infrastructure. S. 1739 provides funding to the motorcoach industry to enhance security at a time when improved security is increasingly necessary but when the industry is least able to make new investments. Other forms of commercial passenger transportation including Amtrak, the airline and transit agencies have all received sizeable funding commitments from Congress for security upgrades, and the motorcoach industry should not be ignored when it comes to safety. Specifically, this bipartisan legislation provides $400 million in grants to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury for over-the-road bus transportation security. The grants must be used for specified system-wide security upgrades, including the reimbursement of security- related costs incurred since September 11, 2001. The grants will allow bus operators to protect drivers, implement passenger screening programs, and construct or modify facilities. Grants could also be used to train employees in terrorist threat assessments, hire and train security officers, and install video surveillance and emergency communication equipment. Many of these upgrades have already been undertaken by the industry since September 11. This bill will supplement and reimburse the industry for these efforts. Since 9/11, Members of Congress have shown broad bipartisan support for addressing the issue of bus security. In April, S. 1739 was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, of which Senator Cleland and I are members. In May, a companion measure passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also unanimously, and is pending on the House floor. Also, this summer Congress provided $15 million for that purpose in the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriation bill. Given the fact that the intercity bus system is a crucial link in America's transportation system, I believe that Congress must act to secure that system against further attacks, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a show of support for this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to Senator Jesse Helms, who as we know is retiring from the U.S. Senate at the end of this Congress. Simply put, the name ``Jesse Helms'' has become a household name because he has never been afraid to stand by his principles. Indeed, throughout his five terms in the Senate, Senator Helms has been a passionate voice for those ideals by which he has lived his life. And that is a critical distinction--Senator Helms has not only propounded certain values and philosophies, he has also lived them. He has always enjoyed the kind of unique credibility that comes from integrity--a personal quality that Senator Helms has carried with him from his very first days in Monroe, NC. This is a man for whom service is a higher calling, a commitment not only reflected by his years in elective office, but also--and at least as importantly--by his service in the Navy from 1942 to 1945. One cannot help but feel that Senator Helms later brought the reality of that experience significantly to bear in his legendary work on matters of international import. When I first came to Congress in 1979, I of course knew of Senator Helms. And as I worked in the House on State Department authorizations over the years as well as a variety of global issues as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Ranking Member of the International Operations Subcommittee, I became even more familiar with his profound interest in, and impact on, international affairs. When I came to the Senate, I became a freshman member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee. Throughout that time--and ever since Senator Helms has been relentlessly gracious to me, as he had been whenever we had worked together on various conference committees back when I was in the House. Here in the Senate, we worked hand-in-glove on the State Department re-authorization, and I appreciated the opportunity he gave me to chair a full committee hearing with then-Secretary Albright on the issue of intelligence sharing with the U.N. in the wake of our involvement in Somalia. That was a serious concern that he and I shared--how would we protect U.S. intelligence information, particularly in light of the intelligence breach that had taken place in Somalia, where the U.N. had documents they should not have had which were also not properly secured. Issues brought to our attention during that hearing with Secretary Albright were eventually incorporated into the State Department bill. During my tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, I worked with Senator Helms on the reorganization of the State Department, which was passed in 1998. As Chair of the International Operations Subcommittee I also introduced legislation in 1995 to create Terrorist Lookout committees in our embassies. With the help of Senator Helms, this bill was incorporated in the State Department Authorization Act of 1996- 1997, that was subsequently vetoed. In the wake of 9/11, I re-introduced this legislation with Senator Helms as a cosponsor and worked with him to seek its inclusion in the USA PATRIOT Act passed last year. With his support, this bill has finally become law as part of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. Of course, it will come as no surprise that we didn't agree on all the issues. But it can truly be said he has left his mark on the global landscape. And that includes his introduction of legislation last year to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection--a goal I share by providing $700 million in international emergency AIDS spending. It is also true that agreement is not the test of friendship or respect in this body--nor should it be. Indeed, this body was founded on the ideals of debate and deliberation among men and women of good conscience who feel strongly about the pressing matters of the day. I appreciate his candor, his friendship, and his service to North Carolina, America and indeed the world. On the occasion of his retirement, I would like to extend my best wishes to him, as well as his wife Dorothy with whom he has such a special and loving relationship. Senator Helms will truly be missed, but most assuredly never forgotten.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the resolution before this body concerning the use of force against Iraq. For the third time in 12 years, the Senate is considering a resolution to address a threat posed by Saddam Hussein to America as well as to the global community. As I said on the floor of the House of Representatives when I was a Member of that body in 1991, on behalf of the authorization of what would become Operation Desert Storm: [T]he magnitude of the vote I now face is greater than any other I have or likely will cast. That is true any time we consider whether to potentially place American men and women in harm's way. That is why I approached this particular vote with the deliberation and the solemnity it demands. During that 1991 debate, I concluded Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait ``threatened in infancy a new decade of hope.'' As I said at the time, I voted as I did: . . . not because the military option is inevitable, but in order not to undermine the President's efforts to achieve a peaceful outcome to this crisis--efforts which require that a credible military threat be maintained against a brutal aggressor who only understands the language of force. A credible threat is necessary against a man who has raised one of the world's largest armies, used chemical weapons against his own people, invaded two neighbors and is developing nuclear and biological capabilities. We are hardly dealing with a man of peace in Saddam Hussein. History, regrettably, has a way of repeating itself. Because 7 years later, in 1998, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution which found Iraq in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' under previous U.N. resolutions--including Security Council Resolution 687 that set the terms and conditions for the 1991 cease-fire--and urged the President ``to take appropriate action . . . to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' But compliance, as we know, never followed. Which brings us to today, to the resolution we have before us, and to the two fundamental questions that are being asked here in Washington, in Maine, and throughout America: Why Saddam Hussein? And why now? As to the first question, I have come to the conclusion--based on the facts--that Saddam Hussein's continued, aggressive production of weapons of mass destruction presents a real and immediate global mess, particularly in light of the absence of any U.N.-mandated inspectors over the last 4 years. Indeed, it was just 4 months after Congress passed the 1998 resolution that Hussein drove out the U.N. weapons inspectors. And what were those inspectors leaving behind? A 1999 report by Richard Butler, the chief inspector, UNSCOM, found when they left Iraq, they were unable to account for 360 tons of bulk chemical agent, including 1\1/2\ tons of VX nerve agent, 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, enough growth media to manufacture 25,000 liters of anthrax spores, and 30,000 special munitions for delivering of chemical and biological agents. Today, there is no reason to believe Hussein has ever looked back. As reported in the U.S. intelligence community document made public on October 4, 2002, he has been seeking to revamp and accelerate his nuclear weapons program. The report concluded that if left unchecked, Iraq would ``probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade,'' and that if Hussein could acquire weapons-grade fissile material from abroad ``it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.'' This information is echoed in the September 24, 2002, intelligence dossier released by British Prime Minister Tony Blair--a critical voice and ally in our war on terrorism. That dossier outlines Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs past and present. It finds Hussein, following the departure of U.N. inspectors in 1998, is aggressively pursuing development of a nuclear capability, and is undeniably seeking items needed to enrich uranium, such as fissile material and gas centrifuge components like vacuum pumps and specialized aluminum tubes. Tellingly, the report also documents Iraq's attempts to buy large quantities of uranium from Africa, even though Iraq has no civil nuclear power program. All of this is in breach of U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Furthermore, the October 4 report states that Iraq is capable of ``quickly producing and weaponizing'' a variety of both chemical and biological agents, including anthrax, ``for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the U.S. homeland.'' Both reports highlight that Hussein's weapons are hidden in ``highly survivable'' facilities, some of them mobile, and, of course, in further violation of Resolution 687, his unrelenting effort to expand his ballistic missile capabilities beyond 150 kilometers. Finally, the October 4 report found that Iraq has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during U.S. cruise missile strikes in 1998. Iraq has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX--all lethal chemical toxins. All of this is in flagrant violation not only of the case-fire resolution, but also 12 other U.S. calls for disarmament over the ensuing 11 years. So it should come as no surprise that the Security Council would have issued 30 letters of condemnation to Iraq over this last decade alone. Iraq was condemned for failures to cooperate fully and immediately, failures to allow immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access, and failures to fulfill all of its obligations as set out in previous resolutions. The bottom line is, in every instance, he has failed to comply--and the U.N. has failed to enforce. Which brings us to the question of: Why now? What urgency has interjected itself that would necessitate the actions we contemplate today? My answer begins not by citing a single fact or occurrence, but rather by illustrating a new, encroaching threat over the past decade that was foreshadowed by the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor--the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. I believe that was the seminal moment when our enemies of today were introduced to the realm of the possible--as those who would wish our destruction developed and implemented comprehensive strategies to systematically assault Americans and our interests whenever, wherever, and however they could. It also should have been an awakening for America. That is why I spearheaded investigations into the comings and goings of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the mastermind of that bombing in 1993, who entered and existed this country five times totally unimpeded. What I found led me to introduce legislation in 1994, requiring information sharing among critical Government agencies, to ensure those on the front lines of securing America would have the resources to keep dangerous aliens from entering the U.S. But there were those who didn't take the threat seriously, and those reforms were quietly altered, and allowed to fade out of law in 1998, and out of the national consciousness. Now, as we peel back the layers through further investigation, we discovered the Sheikh was closely tied to Osama bin Laden and the network we now know as al-Qaida. The point is, over the decade of the 1990s and into the fledgling days of the 21st century, our consciousness was not attuned to the emerging pattern of attacks, and so the pattern continued--from Khobar Towers in 1996, to the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, to the attack on the USS Cole in the fall of 2000, and culminating in the horrific events of September 11, 2001. That terrible day would finally and forever change the way we assess our security and vulnerability, single-handedly adding the term ``homeland Security'' to our national lexicon. It has changed our conception of what constitutes weapons and warfare--and how both may be used against us. To paraphrase Governor Ridge, we are now compelled to come to grips with an enemy who makes no distinction between combatants and noncombatants. The battlefield itself has changed--today, asymmetrical threats accost us in a theater of engagement that includes our own backyard. There is no line of demarcation. Before September 11, we underestimated the threat, and overestimated our security. That is why the Senate and House have been holding joint intelligence hearings, to determine how we can learn from failures of the past. The lapses were so egregious that it prompted our recent vote to authorize an independent commission, to conduct a more far-reaching inquiry into how we could have done better and how we must do better in the future. Because there is no longer any question as to the scope of the threat--and the ability and intent of terrorist groups to bring devastation to our soil. As Secretary Rumsfeld said: We have entered a world in which terrorist movements and terrorist states are developing the capacity to cause unprecedented destruction. Today, our margin of error is notably different. In the 20th century, we were dealing, for the most part, with conventional weapons--weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, generally combatants. In the 21st century, we are dealing with weapons of mass destruction that can kill potentially tens of thousands of people--innocent men, women and children. It is through this prism of the post-September 11 world that we must view an ever emerging convergence of threats over the last 10 years, represented on the one hand by transnational terrorism exemplified by al-Qaida--with cells in more than 30 countries--and on the other by a regime in Iraq that has already developed and deployed horrific weapons of mass destruction. Even as far back as 1991, the United Nations was concerned enough about a potential linkage between terrorists and Saddam Hussein to include in Resolution 687 a requirement that Iraq inform the Security Council: that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory . . . Today, we know from Secretary Rumsfeld that ``al-Qaida is operating in Iraq''. . . that we have ``accurate and not debatable'' evidence of reportedly the presence of senior members of Al-Qaida in Baghdad, and other associations. Iraq has also reportedly provided safe haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists, who was a key participant in the first World Trade Center bombing. We also know that Saddam Hussein continues to provide $25,000 rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the Middle East, continues to harbor the Abu Nidal Organization, and continues to harbor the Palestinian Liberation Front. And so the question we really need to ask ourselves is, why is Hussein so single-mindedly and at all costs amassing such huge stores of horrific weapons? We know he has them. We know he has used them before. The question is, will he use them again? The answer is that we don't know for certain. But from all I have been able to ascertain from high-level briefings, the logical conclusion--based on all the evidence, all the broken promises, all the obfuscation. And now the nexus between Hussein and terrorist groups and individuals--is that we simply can't afford the risk to humanity. Some say we should wait until the threat is imminent. But how will we know when the danger is clear, present and immediate? When people start checking into hospitals? When the toxin shows up in the water supply? When the dirty bomb goes off? Because, in the shadowy world of terrorism, as we have seen, that will already be too late. For these are not weapons that can be easily intercepted or anticipated. They aren't detected by sonar, and they don't show up on radar screens. Therefore, the standard by which we judge the level and immediacy of threat must be calibrated accordingly. In the instance of Iraq, for a terrorist organization that shares Hussein's disdain for America, where better to acquire weapons of mass destruction? And for Saddam Hussein, what better way to deliver these weapons than a terrorist who might smuggle a vial of smallpox in a suitcase or store a canister of sarin gas in a cargo container or launch a drone aircraft or other unmanned aerial vehicle that sprays aerosolized biological agents. In fact, Richard Butler, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, was asked in an interview on October 8, 2002, ``how easy it would be . . . for the Iraquis to arm a terrorist group, or an individual terrorist, with weapons of mass destruction.'' It would be ``extremely easy,'' Ambassador Butler told the interviewer. ``If they decided to do it, it would be a piece of cake.'' It is true we cannot enter the diabolical mind of Saddam Hussein to know conclusively if and when he may deliver his weapons--or share those weapons with terrorists organizations. But we do have an obligation to make a judgment on which side of the equation we want to err--knowing he has the means and opportunity to strike, and knowing we will put potentially millions at risk should we misread his inclination, miscalculate this timing, or underestimate his capability. And we have been wrong before. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, before Operation Desert Storm, ``these best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5 to 7 years away from having nuclear weapons. The experts were wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraquis were probably 6 months to a year away . . .'' Just imagine if we were confronted with an Iraq that already had nuclear capability. Today he is procuring his weapons with the $6.6 billion in illict revenue GAO estimates he has gained over the last 4 years through oil smuggling and ``surcharges.'' When you consider that al-Qaida spent merely $500,000 to inflict such horror as we saw in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, that equation becomes even more ominous--all the more so as September 11 raised our sense of urgency and illuminated a whole new range of dangerous scenarios that place Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in a very different light. As Henry Kissinger warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 26, ``We are only at the beginning of global proliferation,'' and thus we need to ``consider not only the risk of action but the consequences of inaction.'' In context of all we know--we can no longer assure Americans that he can be contained and confined to Iraq. Therefore, I believe the world must disarm Saddam Hussein now, when the development of his capability is imminent--not waiting until it is imminent he is about to strike. In the absence of true strength of enforcement, Hussein will continue to exploit our every weakness through his methodical ``cheat and retreat,'' as he has done systematically and persistently in the past-- resulting in more of the old dynamic of U.N. resolutions and economic sanctions, followed by the repeated inability of the U.N. to enforce its own mandates. To change this paradigm, the President has now rightfully come to Congress to seek authorization and support for a resolution ensuring that when he speaks, he does so with the strength of a unified, unequivocal American voice that leaves no ambivalence as to the resoluteness of our position . . . no doubt where America stands. Given the gravity of the global implications of Hussein's serial intransigence, there is no substitute for the U.N. enforcing compliance, or for the U.S. working through the U.N. Appropriately, this resolution calls upon the President to use the full weight of this office, first and foremost through his diplomatic means and persuasive power--as well as that of his foreign policy team--to convince the U.N. to impose and enforce unfettered, unrestricted inspections. And as Secretary of State Powell has noted, ``our diplomatic efforts at the United Nations would be helped by a strong Congressional resolution. . . .'' Furthermore, as many of my colleagues, as well as my constituents, have expressed, the use of force should be the last resort, and under this resolution it is the last resort. The President emphasized in his speech to the Nation that, ``congressional authorization does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' I realize there are those who oppose unilateral action should the U.N. fail to act, and accordingly would oppose this resolution granting such Presidential authority. But for those who would ultimately preserve the right to authorize military action--even if we cannot secure a U.N. mandate for enforcement--this resolution is preferable to a two-tiered approach. Why? In my view, by granting military authority to the President in advance, it leaves no question or uncertainty as to the level of our commitment, thereby strengthening the President's ability to secure U.N. implementation of a new and enforceable resolution and potentially places us on a course toward a peaceful disarmament. As always, diplomacy must constitute our first line of defense. But in the event that action becomes necessary to safeguard our national security interests outside the auspices of the United Nations, let there be no mistake--the President must exert the last full measure of effort in building an international coalition to join us in disarming Saddam Hussein, because this shouldn't have to be a solo endeavor for our nation. Iraq is not just a threat to America. It is a threat to all of humanity. It is not just our interests we are protecting, it is the interests of a new century that must be free from the scourge of global terrorism. And our goals with regard to Saddam Hussein are inseparable from our mission to eradicate terror at its roots. I have come to the regrettable conclusion that if we allow the Iraqi regime to continue developing its horrific capabilities with impunity, we are endangering mankind by sending a corrosive message that the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction buys immunity from international response. If the United States and its allies offer nothing but disapproving rhetoric or ineffective sanctions as the only price for Iraq's hostility and defiance, then we concede a victory to the tactics of aggression. Rather, if the free nations of the world are to remain the authors of our own destiny, history teaches us that we must never countenance the tyranny of such threats. As Winston Churchill wrote in 1936 of the tyrants building stocks of state-of-the-art weapons of the day: Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry. The world can no longer ignore the tiger in Iraq. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a transcript of the ``Today Show'' of October 8, 2002, be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise to join with my colleagues today in honoring a man the ``Almanac of American Politics'' rightly calls ``the most enduring figure in American politics today'', the Senior Senator from South Carolina, the senior member of the Senate, and the longest serving senator in United States history, our colleague Senator Strom Thurmond. I think that any of us who have had the honor of serving in this body have to be in awe of Senator Thurmond's remarkable 48-year tenure. The responsibilities of this job, the demands on one's time and energy, are incredible. That Senator Thurmond has continued to engender the trust, respect, and support of the people of South Carolina through nearly five decades in the Senate and nearly seventy years in elective office is a testament not only to his storied dedication to his constituents, but to his seemingly-inexhaustible passion for service. Senator Thurmond is quite literally an institution within an institution. If this were baseball, he would be Babe Ruth larger than life, shattering records, and giving 100 percent effort at every at- bat. Even today, I continue to marvel that I am serving along-side this legislative legend. This is a man who was on the floor of this chamber when I was seven years old, a man who was nominated for President when I was one year old, a man who was elected Governor of South Carolina before I was born. Alive even before the Wright Brothers took flight, he has seen firsthand the greatest single period of societal and technological change in the history of the world. He would have even been old enough at age 15 to read first-hand news accounts of the last time the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. Now that is truly amazing! When you think about it, Senator Strom Thurmond's political life spanned the great majority of the 20th century, while he has witnessed--during his more than 36,400 days on earth--nearly half of the history of the United States. It is possible he received votes from Confederate war veterans in his bid for the South Carolina legislature in 1933. This is an extraordinary figure on the landscape of our land-- a living history class and inseparable from any discussion or dissection of the United States Senate. Indeed, Senator Thurmond's tenure has charted many changes in our country, the world, and American society. In an inspiration to all of us, Senator Thurmond has never stopped learning, never stopped drawing lessons from experience and from others. He bears the mark that defines great men and women--the integrity and honesty of an open mind. And there should be no mistake--as if the time Senator Thurmond has devoted to public office is not enough for several lifetimes, he has also served his country in the crucible of war, gaining an exemption from being ``over age'' so he could don a uniform and ultimately participate in the invasion at Normandy on D- day. Fittingly, years later, Senator Thurmond would call upon his ``trial by fire'' experience as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee--and I was proud to call him ``Chairman'' for much of my time on the Committee. He has always been a champion not only of a strong national defense, but also for the men and women who provide that defense, and we owe him a debt of gratitude that simple words fail to repay. In short, some people live long, but not fully. Senator Thurmond's life, however, is remarkable not only for its apparent disregard for such trivialities as ``time'', but also--and more importantly--for its richness. The great American writer Henry David Thoreau aspired to, in his plain-spoken but powerful words, ``live deep and suck all the marrow out of life . . .'' Well, Senator Strom Thurmond personifies that dream--making Thoreau's declaration his personal credo, and leaving the rest of us to watch in admiration and wonder. So today, as we celebrate Senator Thurmond's century of contributions, let us also celebrate the remarkable story of America's journey, for in many ways they are one-in-the-same. Strom, your colleagues wish you all the best--and we thank you for exemplifying what it means to serve in the greatest Democracy the world has ever known.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill which would help restore credibility in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service's, NMFS, data collection programs and improve their cooperative research and management programs. I am introducing this bill today because of recent events in New England in which a commercial fisherman noticed that the trawl warps on the NOAA research vessel, Albatross IV, were improperly marked. As a result of this mis-calibration, the groundfish stock assessment data gathered since February 2000 may be inaccurate and its usability for management purposes is questionable. This fish-counting error could not have come at a worse time for NMFS, which is under a federal judge's order to impose some of New England's strictest fishing restrictions by next August. This revelation and the possibility of other discrepancies is severely eroding the credibility of NMFS's stock assessments. These stock assessments form the foundation for all of our fisheries regulations and determine how many fish our fishermen can harvest. When these stock assessments are flawed and lack credibility, the entire process is adversely affected. We must act now to restore this credibility in the process and ensure that our stock assessments are as accurate as possible. My bill would require the National Research Council to conduct an independent review of NMFS' data collection techniques; its protocols through which stock assessment equipment is calibrated, operated, inspected, and maintained; the frequency and financial cost of these quality control checks; how the accuracy and validity of data collected with sampling equipment is verified; and how measurement error is accounted for in stock assessment modeling and analysis based on these data. The National Research Council completed a report on the Northeast Fishery stock assessment process in 1998, so this new study would build upon the previous one. This assessment will provide us with an independent baseline to determine the extent of NMFS' data collection discrepancies. Additionally, my bill will require NMFS to implement a national cooperative research program to facilitate industry involvement in data collection and stock assessments. I have also included a section that authorizes $3 million to enable cooperative comparative trawl research between the NMFS and fishing industry participants in the Northeast multi-species groundfish fishery. The fishing industry has been calling for a commercial vessel to trawl alongside the NOAA's vessels and this provision would require it. Nothing will help restore NMFS's credibility more than having commercial fishermen verifying its data. The third section of this bill would address a flexibility concern for fisheries management. Earlier this year NMFS came out with new biological targets for groundfish. In other words, NMFS increased how many fish there have to be in order for the fishery to be considered recovered. The law is not clear on whether or not a change in the biological targets means the time-line for recovery changes as well. NMFS has interpreted the law to mean that despite a change in the biological targets, the fish must be recovered in the same amount of time. Accordingly, I have drafted language which allows, but does not require, the Secretary to adjust the time allowed for recovery if the biological targets have changed in the middle of the rebuilding plan. This provision would clarify existing law and make Congress' intent clearer. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, I am dedicated to ensuring that our stock assessments are as accurate as possible and the process we use is transparent to all the stakeholders. This bill will allow us to take a critical step forward in ensuring that we can restore credibility and faith in this important process. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill which would help restore credibility in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service's, NMFS, data collection programs and improve their cooperative research and management programs. I am introducing this bill today because of recent events in New England in which a commercial fisherman noticed that the trawl warps on the NOAA research vessel, Albatross IV, were improperly marked. As a result of this mis-calibration, the groundfish stock assessment data gathered since February 2000 may be inaccurate and its usability for management purposes is questionable. This fish-counting error could not have come at a worse time for NMFS, which is under a federal judge's order to impose some of New England's strictest fishing restrictions by next August. This revelation and the possibility of other discrepancies is severely eroding the credibility of NMFS's stock assessments. These stock assessments form the foundation for all of our fisheries regulations and determine how many fish our fishermen can harvest. When these stock assessments are flawed and lack credibility, the entire process is adversely affected. We must act now to restore this credibility in the process and ensure that our stock assessments are as accurate as possible. My bill would require the National Research Council to conduct an independent review of NMFS' data collection techniques; its protocols through which stock assessment equipment is calibrated, operated, inspected, and maintained; the frequency and financial cost of these quality control checks; how the accuracy and validity of data collected with sampling equipment is verified; and how measurement error is accounted for in stock assessment modeling and analysis based on these data. The National Research Council completed a report on the Northeast Fishery stock assessment process in 1998, so this new study would build upon the previous one. This assessment will provide us with an independent baseline to determine the extent of NMFS' data collection discrepancies. Additionally, my bill will require NMFS to implement a national cooperative research program to facilitate industry involvement in data collection and stock assessments. I have also included a section that authorizes $3 million to enable cooperative comparative trawl research between the NMFS and fishing industry participants in the Northeast multi-species groundfish fishery. The fishing industry has been calling for a commercial vessel to trawl alongside the NOAA's vessels and this provision would require it. Nothing will help restore NMFS's credibility more than having commercial fishermen verifying its data. The third section of this bill would address a flexibility concern for fisheries management. Earlier this year NMFS came out with new biological targets for groundfish. In other words, NMFS increased how many fish there have to be in order for the fishery to be considered recovered. The law is not clear on whether or not a change in the biological targets means the time-line for recovery changes as well. NMFS has interpreted the law to mean that despite a change in the biological targets, the fish must be recovered in the same amount of time. Accordingly, I have drafted language which allows, but does not require, the Secretary to adjust the time allowed for recovery if the biological targets have changed in the middle of the rebuilding plan. This provision would clarify existing law and make Congress' intent clearer. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, I am dedicated to ensuring that our stock assessments are as accurate as possible and the process we use is transparent to all the stakeholders. This bill will allow us to take a critical step forward in ensuring that we can restore credibility and faith in this important process. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. A few short hours ago, at the Pentagon, we bore witness to the essence of this solemn anniversary. It was a message of restoration and renewal from a grateful nation. Today is the commemoration of both incalculable loss and limitless courage, of enduring sorrow and indomitable spirit. We seek to honor the bravery and heroism displayed by so many for so long on this day and the days following. We are moved to grieve for what and whom we lost--such as Maine victims Anna Allison, Carol Flyzik, Robert Jalbert, James Roux, Stephen Ward, Robert Norton, Jacqueline Norton, and Robert Schlegel. Today, we embrace all that we have retained as a nation--our strength, our sense of purpose, our unity, and our veneration of the principles of freedom and justice--for today, the hearts of Americans and freedom-loving people across the globe are beckoned at once by sorrow and resolve, and we should heed the call of both. The snapshots of insanity etched in our minds, the indelible stain of unfathomable inhumanity, these must remain if we are to triumph over the tyranny of terror, and triumph we must. In a horrific irony, the forces of darkness had their way on an especially bright and beautiful morning, much like today, and the evil that fueled their horrible deeds lives on in the shadows of the world. The struggle before us will be constant, and therefore our vigilance must be unflagging. So on this first anniversary of a new era, let us continue to brace ourselves to perpetuating what is good and just, as we and our allies did in the 20th century's great struggles against evil. And let us remember how that one day in September not only changed America and the world but also reminded us of what really matters, of the principles and the people we value and certainly should appreciate--our firefighters, police officers, rescue workers, our troops, and seemingly ordinary Americans who, when faced with the horrible certainty of their circumstances, knowingly bring down a plane to save the lives of others, not to mention the very symbols of our democracy, the Capitol and the White House. On this solemn occasion, we celebrate those heroes who walk among us today, while the legacy of those who made the ultimate sacrifice reverberates throughout New York, Washington, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and every town and city in this land. Indeed, if it is true that a nation is defined by its response to adversity, then America redefined its own greatness. Men and women searching and clearing the World Trade Center site worked day and night, while volunteers brought them food and water. Their labor will stand as a memorial beside the hallowed site's eternal flame near the hole in the Earth that mirrors the hole in our heart that will never fully mend. And just across the Potomac, engineers and construction workers poured forth every last ounce to rebuild the Pentagon within 1 year in a gesture comprised of equal parts defiance and pride. At the building's D-ring, a father literally helped repair the broken stone and mortar near the very spot where his son perished that fateful morning. What is lost can never be recovered, but with this first anniversary of September 11, it is as though life has reclaimed its rightful place where destruction dared intrude. At the Pentagon there is a single blackened stone set within the new wall to symbolize what cannot and must not ever be forgotten. We have witnessed an almost incomprehensible transformation from the blackened devastation we saw a year ago, just as America itself has been transformed. An unparalleled sense of unity and compassion swept across America, proving once again that the true strength of our Nation has always flowed from the fortitude of our people. As we lifted up the hearts of those grieving for loved ones, we moved toward a swift and just defense of our freedom, and the President worked vigorously and mightily to build an international coalition. And while the war on terror will unquestionably be long and dangerous, our heroic men and women in uniform struck quickly and decisively at the heart of the Taliban. In February, I had the privilege of visiting our troops and meeting with President Karzai as part of a congressional trip to Afghanistan. What left the most profound impression on me, one I will never forget, was the unflinching commitment, the indefatigable resolve, and highest level of professionalism, not to mention bravery, of our troops. Indeed, much was revealed to us on the morning of September 11, 2001: The extent of the threat against us, the image of the devil incarnate, but also the face of a resilient and passionate and a united nation that would not allow this travesty to stand. We have learned that we can continue the process of healing, even knowing we will never fully be healed. We have learned we can move forward, without moving away from the anger we justifiably feel. Indeed, if we are to properly memorialize those whom we lost on that day and the days since, then we must maintain a boundless resolve in perpetuity that is so essential to keeping America secure and eradicate the roots of terrorism and the bloody instruments of fear. At Gettysburg, President Lincoln said: It is for us the living . . . to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is . . . for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. That is our call yet again today. That is the destiny to which we must rise. Now, like then, we are equal to the challenge. God bless America. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support this conference report. Although I am disappointed that several provisions were removed in conference, on balance this legislation still represents a major expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance that is crucial for those workers who have lost their jobs due to imports or plant relocations to other countries. I supported this legislation during the Finance Committee's markup, as well as during the Senate vote in May as I have been involved with this legislation for over a year with hearings, markups, negotiations, consideration by the Senate, and now the consideration of the conference report. I worked with Senator Bingaman on the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA provisions and then with Senators Grassley and Baucus. In the same manner, both agreed to a critical expansion of the existing TAA program while also including provisions I advocated to accelerate assistance to dislocated workers and provide them with greater options in the utilization of these benefits. And, when the healthcare provision of TAA threatened to scuttle the bill, Senator Baucus and I worked together to fashion a deal that would be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats. At no point was my decision to support the Senate package, and the TPA section in particular, a foregone conclusion, as I have opposed trade agreements and fast-track authority in the past. I did so because I never felt they struck the proper balance between free and fair trade, and I've been concerned that both Republican and Democrat administrations approached the enforcement of U.S. trade laws not with vigor, but with at best a benign neglect. However, when the Finance Committee marked-up this fast-track legislation in December and the Senate passed it in May, I supported it precisely because it did strike the appropriate balance, and because of this administration's commitment to aggressively enforce our trade laws so that American workers aren't undermined by unfair trade practices. Furthermore, while some oppose linking TPA and TAA as contained in this trade package, my support is contingent on this linkage and I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of joining these proposals that are inextricably joined. TAA would not even exist if not for the fact that trade agreements impact U.S. jobs, so attempting to bifurcate TAA and TPA is like trying to divide the ``heads'' from the ``tails'' on a coin--sure, it may be possible, but the end product won't be worth one red cent! TPA and TAA were enjoined and I supported that approach because we must never forget that in the engagement of trade there is a downside-- chiefly, that real lives are affected, people not just statistics. When Americans become unemployed due to increased imports or plant relocations to other countries, it is because of trade agreements negotiated by the government of the United States and passed by Congress. Therefore, we have an obligation to also work toward forging a system that provides these trade-impacted Americans with the new skills needed to gain new employment. This conference report does contain many provisions on both trade and trade adjustment assistance that I think are critical components that make them better than in the past. An expanded TAA program is going to be created, which I support, that will allow more workers to receive re-training and income support assistance quicker and for a longer period of time. This income support and re-training is vital to ensure that these workers can re-enter the workforce and also provide temporary assistance while they are learning new skills. There are also provisions I fought for that will help speed up the approval process. Specifically, besides consolidating the current TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into one, more efficient program, the bill includes my proposal to speed-up assistance to displaced workers by decreasing the TAA petition time for certification from 60 days to 40 days. Reducing this time by 20 days will allow people to get on with their lives that much quicker. The TAA section also provides a 65 percent tax credit for trade- impacted workers to continue their health coverage for themselves and their family. This tax credit is ``advanceable'' so that people will receive this assistance immediately rather than paying up front to get a tax refund later. Moreover, this bill addresses another issue that has created problems in my State this year, the current budget for training assistance. Since last year, Maine has run short of training funds by almost $3 million, forcing them to apply for five different Department of Labor National Emergency Grants and potentially causing a freeze in re- training assistance. By providing $220 million in funding, this shortfall will be fully addressed. And we didn't stop there. Not only does this funding level address state shortfalls, but it also ensures expanded coverage for secondary workers affected by trade. Specifically, under the compromise developed by Senators Grassley and Baucus, secondary workers with a direct relationship to the downsizing or closing of a plant will be covered by TAA, while so-called ``downstream workers'' covered now under a Statement of Administrative Action, SAA, as part of the NAFTA-TAA program will also be covered through the SAA's codification. But make no mistake, the conference report does not contain some provisions that would be vital to people and communities adversely impacted by trade. Specifically, a small business pilot program that would allow those workers receiving TAA to start a small business without losing their benefits was dropped. Performance assessments of the TAA program that included the economic condition of the state were dropped, as were all performance requirements. Not only were these removed but so was TAA for fishermen. Instead, this bill requires a study to determine whether TAA for fishermen is ``appropriate and feasible''. What is amazing is that TAA for farmers is covered in this bill but that somehow their coverage would be different than for fishermen. That is why we are working right now with the Department of Labor on administrative procedures to ensure that fishermen will be eligible for TAA. TAA for communities was also dropped in conference. This would have allowed communities that suffered a plant closure due to import competition to apply for grants in order to attract new businesses. As in my home State of Maine, many States have rural towns that are dependent on a single plant for their livelihood and this provision would have given them a chance should that plant close. In addition, coverage for workers that have watched their plant move overseas, known as shifts in production, has also been limited in the bill. As opposed to granting eligibility to workers whose plant moved to any country overseas, this conference report limits coverage only to those workers whose plant moved to a country that has a Free Trade Agreement, FTA, with the U.S., is a country receiving the reduced duties or duty-free benefits of the ATPA, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, or, if there has been an increase in imports from the country to which the plant moved. This may appear to cover all the bases, except for the possibility that a plant will move overseas and may not actually import back to the U.S., thus there will be no increase in imports. If the U.S. has no FTA with that country or it is not participating in a U.S. duty-reduction program like the ATPA, then those workers are not eligible for TAA. How are these workers affected differently from others who lose their jobs due to imports? As I said earlier, on balance, the TAA provisions represent a significant expansion and improvement of the former TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs and will provide an invaluable service to those dislocated workers as they seek new jobs. While the government is assisting workers whose jobs have been lost due to imports, this bill also provides the Administration with the ability, through TPA, to negotiate trade agreements that will improve and increase U.S. exports. As I mentioned earlier, my past opposition to fast-track, due to concerns about the balance between free and fair trade and our enforcement of our trade laws, have been addressed in this bill. The bottom line is that enforcement is an inseparable component of free and fair trade. If you don't believe me, just look at the record. In the past, when free trade and fair trade have been treated as mutually exclusive, import-sensitive industries in Maine and America were decimated by foreign competitors. Why? Because foreign businesses enjoyed the benefits of a lack of reciprocity in trade agreements, foreign industry subsidies, dumping in the U.S. market . . . and non- tariff trade barriers. For this reason, I was disappointed that the Dayton-Craig language on trade remedy laws was removed in conference. However, the fact that the existing language on maintaining our ability to ``enforce rigorously'' our trade remedy laws became a Principal Negotiating Objective demonstrates a recognition of the utmost importance with which we hold these laws. In that regard, the Administration should take note that no trade agreement should ever be submitted to this Congress that weakens our trade remedy laws. As a member of the Finance Committee, I will do everything that I can to ensure that no trade agreement never ever weakens or undermines these laws. The enforcement of our trade remedy laws are vital as the surrender of our rights have had serious consequences in the lives of real people. In Maine alone, we lost nearly 15,400 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA's inception including 2,400 textile jobs, 6,000 leather products jobs, 500 apparel jobs, 3,700 paper and allied products jobs, and 4,800 footwear jobs, excluding rubber footwear, and 5,200 manufacturing jobs so far just this year. We failed those people because we abdicated our responsibility to take a balanced, comprehensive and integrated approach to trade. That is why I can not and will not support the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. I opposed this during the Finance Committee's markup of the legislation and, although I supported the Senate's trade package legislation, I opposed its inclusion in the trade package. The ATPA represents a unilateral action by the U.S. to open our markets to the Andean countries in order to bolster their economies in the hopes of reducing drug cultivation. Its effect the last ten years has been questionable with the ITC not able to make a definitive, affirmative determination that it has greatly contributed to the reduction of drug cultivation by providing economic opportunities. The amount of exports from these countries which fall exclusively under the ATPA has remained relatively constant at 10 percent over the years. The fact that this has changed little indicates that there has been no major change in the production structure of ATPA economies meaning that these countries have not been taking more advantage of what ATPA offered. Therefore, what this legislation seeks to do is change our policies to conform to the Andean countries rather than these countries changing to take advantage of what the U.S. has already offered. U.S. jobs are on the line for an unproven trade benefit program. That is why I worked in the ATPA to provide the rubber footwear industry with a comparable tariff provision to that which they received in NAFTA. The original ATPA further threatened this industry by giving the four Andean nations a tariff phase-out schedule that was only half as long as the 15-year schedule contained in the NAFTA. I was pleased that the Senate passed the trade package last May with this same 15 year phaseout, because without it we would have set a precedent that would be demanded by other countries as well. This conference report drops this provision and with it went the hopes of the domestic rubber footwear industry and its 3,400 workers-- 1,000 of which are in Maine. Not only was my provision lost, but the Senate receded to the House. Under this, all footwear--that was excluded under the expired ATPA legislation, as well as textiles and apparels, leather products, and watches will enter the U.S. duty-free with no phaseout. Such an immediate tariff reduction to zero will only serve as a sign to other countries, particularly Chile and Latin America nations, that the U.S. rubber footwear industry, once considered import-sensitive, is not only open for business, but for decimation. For this reason, I have been working with the USTR to impress upon them the significance this precedent will have on other trade agreements, particularly with Chile. I am pleased that the USTR provided me with unequivocal assurances that the ATPA provisions regarding rubber footwear in no way establishes a precedent for Chile, and that they will continue their efforts to prevent any adverse impact during trade negotiations on domestic rubber footwear. And while we cannot bring back these or other jobs that were lost due to the miscues of the past, we can learn from those miscues and apply the lessons to our present and future actions. We can change our approach at the negotiating table. We can enforce existing trade laws. In the real world, we have to acknowledge that there are many nations that don't care about labor or environmental standards. And that creates a tilted playing field where it's harder for us to compete. In that regard, this legislation goes further than any past fast-track bills on the issues of labor and the environment. The bill before us today not only sets as an overall objective the need to convince our trading partners not to weaken their labor or environmental laws as an inducement to trade, but it also requires the enforcement of existing labor and environmental laws as a principal negotiating objective. The conference report also recognizes the need to take steps to protect the import sensitive textile and apparel industry. It calls for reducing tariffs on textiles and apparels in other countries to the same or lower levels than in the U.S., reducing or eliminating subsidies to provide for greater market opportunities for U.S. textiles and apparels, and ensuring that WTO member countries immediately fulfill their obligations to provide similar market access for U.S. textiles and apparels as the U.S. does for theirs. And this legislation includes new negotiating objectives to address the issue of foreign subsidies and market distortions that lead to dumping. As a result, many industries stand to benefit from the adoption of this legislation, including the forest and paper, agriculture, semiconductor, precision manufacturing, and electronic industries of my home state. According to Maine Governor Angus King the fast track approach is, ``On balance . . . beneficial to Maine. There might be some short term problems, but in the long run, we have to participate in the world economy.'' And Maine has been participating. From 1989 to 1999, total exports by Maine companies increased by 137 percent from $914 million to $2.167 billion, with the largest industry sector for trade being semiconductors--employing about 2,000 in Maine. The computer and electronics trade, which includes semiconductors, accounted for 33 percent of Maine's exports in 1999, followed by paper and allied products at 17 percent. The Maine industries that benefit from exports have also seen job gains in the state. From 1994 to 1999, the electrical and electronics industry had a job gain of 2.3 percent and the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry saw a 19 percent increase in jobs. In 2000, Maine's exports supported 84,000 jobs. Mr. President, these measures and commitments represent a significant strengthening of our resolve and our ability to utilize existing remedies to protect American industries and workers. This comes not a moment too soon, as the success of our economy relies more than ever on fair and freer trade U.S. exports accounted for one-quarter of U.S. economic growth over the past decade . . . nearly one in six manufactured products coming off the assembly line goes to a foreign customer . . . and exports support 1 of every 5 manufacturing jobs. Given these facts, it is an understandable concern that the U.S. has been party to only 3 free trade agreements while there are more than 130 worldwide. Since 1995, the WTO has been notified of 90 such agreements while the U.S. only reached one in the trade arena, the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, the European Union, EU, has been particularly aggressive, having entered into 27 free trade agreements since 1990 and they are actively negotiating another 15. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Business Roundtable reports that 33 percent of total world exports are covered by EU free trade agreements compared to 11 percent for U.S. agreements. Why should these facts raise concerns? Because every agreement made without us is a threat to American jobs. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Chile which signed a free trade agreement with Canada, Argentina and several other nations in 1997. Since that time, the U.S. has lost one-quarter of Chile's import market, while nations entering into trade agreements more than captured our lost share. According to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), this resulted in the loss of more than $800 million in U.S. exports and 100,000 job opportunities. One specific industry affected was U.S. paper products which accounted for 30 percent of Chile's imports but has since dropped to only 11 percent after the trade agreements were signed. We need to look to the future of our industries and open doors of opportunity in the global marketplace. In order to do so responsibly, we need to learn every economic lesson possible from the past, and this package provides for not only a study I requested of the economic impact of the past five trade agreements, but also an additional evaluation of any new agreements before TPA is extended. And we need to make sure that everyone who can benefit from these agreements can get their foot in the door. Small businesses, for example, account for 30 percent of all U.S. goods exported, and in Maine more than 78 percent export, so I am pleased this bill includes my proposals placing small businesses in our principle negotiating objectives. Finally, the package includes consultation rights for the House and Senate Committees with oversight of the fishing industry. As the past Chair and current Ranking Member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, I can tell you that the actions of other countries with regard to fishing plays a crucial role in ensuring our industry has a level playing field on which to compete. Last year this country exported $11 billion worth of edible and nonedible fish products, and in Maine the industry--which is our 5th leading exporter--generates 26,000 jobs. In the eleventh hour race, Mr. President, as was the case with many TAA provisions, some other items that were crucial for small businesses which make up 99 percent of all U.S. businesses were also lost. One was a provision to create a small business Assistant USTR which the Senate- passed bill included. Although the conference report states that the Assistant USTR for Industry and Telecommunications would be responsible for this portfolio, it contains a only sense of Congress that the title reflect that. I am shocked at how seemingly difficult it was for us to create a position for small business at the USTR with a title that reflects that fact. Similarly, a provision requiring the USTR to identify someone to be a small business advocate in the WTO is also no longer in this bill. Why? Is it that controversial for us to ensure that the interests of small business are represented in the WTO? This is not a perfect bill but the adoption of this comprehensive package will ensure that trade agreements will be pursued in a fair and balanced manner to the benefit of all Americans while also recognizing the need for expanded assistance for those who lose their jobs due to trade.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce two bills for harbors in Maine, one to deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project in Northeast Harbor, and the second to redesignate the Upper Basin of the Union River Federal Navigational Channel as an anchorage. The bills, cosponsored by Senator Collins, will help strengthen the economic viability of these two popular Maine harbors. Because of changing harbor usage over the last 45 years, the Town of Mount Desert has requested that Northeast Harbor be withdrawn from the Federal Navigation Project. This removal will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels. The Harbor was authorized in 1945 and constructed in 1954 as a mixed- use commercial fishing/recreational boating harbor--and it still is today. It was dredged in the early 1950s to provide more space for recreational boating and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has informed the town that Northeast Harbor would be very low on its dredging priority list as it has become primarily a recreational harbor. The town says it realizes that, once it is no longer part of the Federal Navigational Project, any further dredging within the harbor would be carried out at town expense. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. My second bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area. I have worked with the New England Division of the Corps to draft these bills and the language has been approved by Army Corps Headquarters in Washington. I look forward to working with my colleagues for their passage, either as stand alone bills or as separate provisions in the Corps reauthorization bill, the Water Resources Development Act of 2002, that Congress is currently drafting.