Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 34, a joint resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, NV, for the development of a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. As we are aware, under current law, Energy Secretary Abraham recommended the Yucca Mountain geologic site as the repository for the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the President on February 14, 2002, and the President then recommended the site to Congress the next day. Under law, on April 8, Nevada Governor Guinn exercised his right to veto the Yucca Mountain site. This veto will block further development of the site unless the Congress acts by passing an approval resolution that is signed by the President by July 27. In 1982, legislation was crafted in response to the need to dispose of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that has been collecting since the growth of the nuclear power industry started in the 1950s. The waste is now being stored in various ways in 131 locations across the country. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the NWPA, called for disposal of this spent nuclear fuel in a repository in a deep geologic formation that would not be disturbed for thousands of years. An office was established in the Department of Energy to develop such a storage repository, the costs of which would be covered by a fee on nuclear- generated electricity and paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. My experience with the storage of the Nation's high-level nuclear waste covers the entire 20 year lifetime of the NWPA. In the 99th Congress, I introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 4664, with 23 other Representatives to amend the NWPA. The bill called for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a single national repository. At that time, the NWPA called for two repositories, one in the East and one in the West. I was also a cosponsor of H.R. 4668, the Broyhill bill that removed the requirement of a second repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Our successes came in the next Congress, the 100th Congress, when language I developed with then Representative Mo Udall was ultimately included in the fiscal year 1988 Concurrent Budget Resolution that went on to be signed into law as Public Law 100-203. The language called for the establishment of one national repository. Language was also added at that time that established Yucca Mountain as the only site to be considered for the repository. Through all of those years, and especially since 9/11, I have continued to believe that the Nation's spent nuclear fuel could be more safely stored at one secure federally guarded facility than at temporary storage facilities all around the country. It would also be less expensive to State governments, which have already taken on the responsibility of dealing with the storage of low-level radioactive waste within their borders. I do not believe that leaving the spent fuel at commercial and DOE sites for 10,000 years while having each site take the necessary security precautions and storage upgrades is the best approach, especially as the DOE itself has predicted that leaving the spent fuel stored on all of the numerous sites throughout the country would result in a radioactive material release, contaminating soil, surface water, and groundwater. In Maine, we have a nuclear plant being decommissioned--Maine Yankee--that has been waiting for the Federal Government to take the waste that it should have taken by law by 1998, but has still failed to do so since no facility is ready to store the waste. In fact, Maine Yankee is seeking $120 million through a lawsuit against DOE because the Federal Government has not lived up to their part of the bargain. The nuclear power plant stopped operating in 1997, but 1,434 spent fuel assemblies still sit at the site waiting for a permanent Federal solution. The company has now spent about $60 million to build a dry cask storage facility and will spend at least $4 million per year to operate it. This is not a unique case as there are a total of 26 power plants no longer in operation that also have waste waiting to be shipped. By 2006, 60 reactors will run out of original storage space, with 78 running out by 2010. Even after we pass this resolution and the President signs it, the repository will still need to meet the strict requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be licensed, and if the Yucca Mountain site receives approval, it will not even be ready to accept spent fuel before 2010 at the earliest. We simply cannot wait any longer to move this issue forward. I understand that concerns have been raised about the transportation of the spent fuel--and these should be raised and the public should be assured that security plans are in place for safe transportation. We do, however, have a decade to assure that the waste will be safely and securely shipped to the Yucca Mountain site from all parts of the country. Indeed, history tells us that past shipments have been carefully managed. The nuclear industry has completed 3,000 shipments of spent fuel over 1.7 million miles by highways and railroads since 1964. Eight accidents have occurred, four of which had fuel in the shipping containers, but no radiation was released. In the next decade, we can expect even greater safety of shipments through improved technology. I was pleased to support Senator Carnahan's amendment to the recently passed Senate energy bill that calls for a National Academy of Sciences study on how DOE chooses spent nuclear fuel transportation routes, and to do risk assessments of all of the potential routes. This should clarify the transportation issue even more for the public and I urge the conferees to keep this provision in the conference report. The Federal Government has already spent $7 billion on the Yucca Mountain site, and will ultimately spend about $50 billion more up to the time when the site is expected to reach capacity and is closed in 2019. We must move forward responsibly to once and for all safely and securely store the Nation's highly radioactive spent fuel and nuclear waste at a single national location or, as the DOE has projected, the cost will climb to the trillions of dollars. We can neither afford this or afford to wait any longer.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Kennedy in introducing The Women's Pension Protection Act of 2002 to improve the retirement security of women. As Americans live longer, achieving financial security can be a particular challenge for women. Women live, on average, seven years longer than men but earn less money over their lifetime, and as women continue to be society's primary caregivers, they continue to lose time from the workplace during their prime earning years. The result? Just 40 percent of women have pensions, compared with 47 percent of men. Of those with pensions, women retirees receive only about half the pension benefits that men receive--on average, $4,200 annually compared to $7,800 for men. With less time to invest in their retirement, women are frequently unable to establish a solid nest egg for future years. Women sometimes rely on their spouse's pension for essential savings in later years. If a marriage dissolves, as roughly half of marriages in America have, this can deal a terrible blow to a women's retirement plans. For elderly women the situation worsens, as they are three times as likely than men to outlive their spouses. Lower pensions can make it difficult for women to make ends meet in their later years. Tragically, almost one in five nonmarried elderly women, 17 percent, live in poverty today. These facts help explain why our pension laws should reflect the reality and needs of our workforce. The bill we are introducing today is aimed at meeting the unique financial needs of women. It recognizes the economic partnership of marriage, ensuring that women are included in financial decisions that effect their future. Under this bill, spousal consent would be required before participants can withdraw lump sum payments of pension benefits 401(k) plans. Similar requirements already exist for spouses of workers covered by traditional pension plans. This bill also encourages more investment into annuities, which pay a guaranteed stream of lifelong income and help to prevent poverty. Spouses will have the option of selecting a 75-percent survivor benefit, in addition to the current 50- percent survivor benefit. This legislation also enhances the financial security of women by requiring plans to offer the option of increasing survivor benefits from 50 percent to at least 75 percent of her husband's retirement. It ensures that a widow can receive her husband's pension regardless of when the husband dies or whether he applied for the pension to begin. And it closes a glaring loophole by ensuring that pension plan administrators will abide by the division of pension benefits ordered by the courts in a divorce proceeding, regardless of when the order is given. Ultimately, this legislation will strengthen our country's future by giving the tools women, and men, need to secure their retirement future. We have an opportunity to improve the benefits to our workforce and enhance opportunities for women in a way that makes sense. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Hutchison, regarding base closures. Last year, with the passage of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress authorized a round of base closures in fiscal year 2005. So we are now on a path to a base closure round in 3 years. Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, there were serious questions about both the integrity of the base closing process itself as well as the actual benefits. Now, with the U.S. in the midst of a war on terror, with no end in sight, I do not believe base closure is a wise path. Instead, Congress was pressed to authorize a base closure round in the dark. Proponents of base closure claim that efforts to reduce infrastructure have not kept pace with our post cold war military force reductions, and that bases must be downsized proportionate to the reduction in total force strength. However, there is no straight line corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to support them. Since the end of the cold war, through fiscal year 01, we reduced the military force structure by about 36 percent and reduced the defense budget by about 40 percent. But while the size of the armed services has decreased, the number of contingencies that our service members have been called upon to respond to in the last decade has dramatically increased. And, keep in mind, once property is relinquished and remediated, it is permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes. In addition, advocates of base closure allege that billions of dollars will be saved. And yet, the Department of Defense has admitted that savings will not be immediate--that approximately $10 billion would be needed for up-front environmental and other costs; and that savings would not materialize for years. This is why I was pleased to team with Senator Hutchison in her effort to establish some basic criteria designed to guide the process, and I deeply regret that the Senate will not have the opportunity to adopt these provisions. Senator Hutchison's provision, of which I am an original cosponsor, would set criteria for the base closure process--to make the process less political, less subjective, and more objective. The Hutchison amendment would have made sure that the process accounts for force structure and mission requirements, force protection, homeland security requirements, proximity to mobilization points, costs of relocating infrastructure including military construction costs, compliance with environmental laws, contract termination costs, unique characteristics of existing facilities, and State and local support for a continued presence by the military. I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and submarines, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defend our nation and its interests. I want to protect the economic viability of communities in every State. And I want to make absolutely sure that this Nation maintains the military infrastructure it will need in the years to come to support the war on terror. In short, we must not degrade the readiness of our armed forces by closing more bases. I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on this important issue, and I remain hopeful that if we press ahead with this ill-conceived base closure round in just 3 years time we will have an opportunity to at least establish sound, basic ground rules.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Senate version of the FY2003 National Defense authorization bill. As a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I fully appreciate the hard work and long hours my colleagues in the Senate and their counterparts in the House have dedicated to the completion of the bill. There are many important provisions in this bill. However, there are also some critical defense requirements which were overlooked. And I would like to take a moment to address those concerns. First and foremost, with the enormous increase in the defense budget overall, I am deeply troubled that we would fail to sustain the size of our naval fleet, which has played such a critical role in the war on terror. Admiral Robert J. Natter, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, captured it best when he said ``We fight them here, or we can fight them there--it's America's choice.'' And he continued ``I'd prefer to fight them there, because I know we can beat them.'' Well, we can't fight them there without a Navy. In the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom, our Navy fired over 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at crippling Taliban air defenses. The Navy executed the majority of the air strikes in the land war. Aircraft-carrier based fighter and strike aircraft launched 60 to 80 missions a day dropping thousands of bombs on terrorists and Taliban targets. More than 50 Navy ships participated in the action. I am proud of our Navy, but the fact of the matter is, if we do not increase the ship procurement rate, the size and strength of our fleet is going to be diminished. If we allow this to happen, we are doing future generations a great disservice. Because the reality is that, when the United States us unable, for whatever reason, to launch military strikes from ground bases in a region where U.S. interests are at stake, there are times when our Navy may be the only option. Yet, the fleet was stretched too thin even before Operation Enduring Freedom. When I was chair of the Senate Seapower Subcommittee, I heard this time and again from senior Navy officials. As the war on terror continues, I believe it is more important than ever that we maintain a fleet large enough and strong enough to project the power we need in order to safeguard U.S. interests. These are the facts, The Administration proposed in its budget to procure five new Navy ships in Fiscal Year 2003 and a total of 34 new Navy ships through Fiscal Year 2007. This is an average of 6.8 new ships per year. But we need 8.9 ships per year just to maintain a 310- ship fleet. The size of the fleet could fall to 263 ships by 2015 to 2025 if we do not reverse this trend. Last year, Secretary Rumsfield painted an even more dire picture, estimating that the Navy could end up with a 230 ship Navy in the 2025 time frame without substantial increases in the build rate. Contrast this with the size of our fleet in 1987 when we had 568 ships. I know that the administration recognizes the problem, and I credit them with understanding the need to build more ships in the future. The DOD and the Navy have acknowledged the need to build more ships. Last year, a study conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense concluded that the Navy should have 340 ships. Navy officials put the number at 370-380. And they should know. They are the men and women who are responsible for our forward deployed forces. But we need to help them by taking action. Whatever the ultimate number, we need to reverse the current trend and begin to build a bigger fleet. But we need to begin to produce more ships now, because there is not doubt that the size of our naval fleet is a vital matter of national security. We can't afford to wait any longer. We can't afford to risk this essential component of our world-wide defense force. After all, 80 percent of the planet's population lives along the coastal plains of the world, and it is the Navy that has the capability that is imperative if we are to maintain military superiority and defend America's national interests in the 21st century. For even with today's rapidly changing and diverse security threats, there is no foreseeable future that would have our security interests best served by a diminished naval fleet. Despite the fact that Secretary England has endorsed funding for a third destroyer, for example, this bill fails to fund an additional ship. To maintain readiness and to sustain the industrial base, we desperately need a third destroyer authorized and funded in fiscal year 2003. Even to maintain a 116-ship surface combatant force, given the projected service life of 35 years for DDG-51 Class ships, requires a sustained replacement rate of over three ships per year. If you assume a 30-year service life, which is more realistic historically, sustaining even the 116-ship surface combatant force would require annual procurement of almost four DDGs each year. And at a rate of only two destroyers a year, it may be difficult to sustain the yards that have historically built these critical platforms. That is why I was pleased to team with Senator Collins to extend the multi-year procurement rate for DDG destroyers through fiscal year 2007. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I secured procurement authorization for three DDGs annually through fiscal year 2005, and this bill extends that authorization for an additional two years. It is still imperative to add a third destroyer to the fiscal year 2003 budget, but this multi-year procurement is a step in the right direction. While I am very concerned about the failure to fully fund the shipbuilding accounts, I do believe credit is due in some other important areas. For example, the bill does make some invaluable personnel contributions. The measure includes a 4.1 percent across-the- board pay raise for all military personnel, with an additional targeted pay raise for the mid-career force. It includes a provision authorizing the concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation for military retirees with disabilities, an effort which I have long supported. The bill also reaffirms Congress's commitment to the war on terror by funding requirements needed to support our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen who are on the front lines with the planes, vehicles, ships and armaments they need to carry out their critical missions. The bill would set aside $10 billion, as requested by the administration, to fund ongoing operations in the war against international terrorism during fiscal year 2003. And it includes substantial funding to meet asymmetrical terrorist threats including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and develop the agility, mobility, and survivability necessary to meet the challenges of the future. It would increase by $199.7 million funding to enhance the security of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons at Department of Energy facilities. It would increase funding for U.S. Special Operations Command by $42.7 million. Defenses against chemical and biological weapons and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction would see an increase of $30.5 million. And the bill would find the request of over $2 billion for force protection improvements to DOD installations around the world. Finally, the bill would also make possible continued improvements in the Navy's human resources services with the authorization of $1.5 million for operation of a pilot human resources call center in Machias, Maine under an amendment I worked to include in the bill. This call center went on-line in January of this year. I worked hard with the Navy to locate this facility in Washington County, ME to help compensate for the loss of military personnel at the Cutler Naval Computer and Telecommunications station in Cutler, a communication center used to provide contact with U.S. submarines in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Arctic seas. At its peak there were 220 people working at the base--110 civilians and 110 Navy personnel. The call center establishes a single national employee benefits center for the Department of the Navy to standardize the ``call in capability'' of services currently performed in eight separate Human Resources Service Centers. This center integrates developed computer and internet technologies to provide updated information immediately to Navy civilians and beneficiaries who make inquiries. In closing, let me say that I hope during the House-Senate conference on the defense authorization that we will be able to build on the foundation that has been set in this bill and make it an even stronger bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to salute a soldier, public servant, and son of Maine who Monday afternoon was honored for his heroic service 58 years ago today. This recognition is all the more special for me, for our Nation also honors a colleague, former Senator William D. Hathaway of Maine. On Monday, the United States Air Force recognized a distinguished World War II veteran for his heroic service 58 years ago. As a young airman serving with the Fifteenth Air Force high over the Ploesti oil fields in Romania, Second Lieutenant Bill Hathaway and his crew mates showed their courage, and in the process helped turn the tide of the Battle of Ploesti toward the Allied cause. As Major General N.F. Twining, Commanding General of the Fifteenth Air Force, wrote in a letter to Lieutenant Hathaway after the battle, ``Your return marked the culmination of an outstanding campaign in the annals of American military history. The German war machine's disintegration on all fronts is being caused, to a large extent, by their lack of oil oil that you took away from them.'' On the morning of June 24, 1944, while stationed near San Pancrazio, Italy, Lieutenant Hathaway and other members of the 514th Flying Squadron were deployed to Romania, where a battle for control of the Ploesti oil fields was raging with the Germans. Early that morning, Lieutenant Hathaway's squadron took off from their air station, located near the heel of Italy's boot, and crossed the Adriatic toward Bucharest, and the nearby oil fields. Future Senator Bill Hathaway was situated as a navigator as his B-17 aircraft droned toward its target. By 10:00 a.m., the squadron had arrived over Ploesti, but they encountered heavy enemy fire from the time they crossed the Rhine River nearby. As many as 200 German fighters challenged the American flyers, who encountered heavy flak. Upon arriving over the oil fields, though, the American mission was thwarted by a heavy German smoke screen that shielded the oil fields and other targets on the ground from sight. Undaunted, Lieutenant Hathaway and the crew plotted another alternative, as the squadron's commanding officer ordered the crew to turn around, circle back, and try the bombing run again. Dodging nearby anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters, the team proceeded over the oil fields again, and this time they found their target. The 514th dropped its bombs on target and headed away from Ploesti. But as with so many battles, the 514th's celebration was fleeting. Soon after dropping its bombs, Lieutenant Hathaway's aircraft was hit by flak from the dogfight over the oilfields. One of the B-17's engines was disabled, and three crew were injured: Lieutenant Hathaway was hit in the shoulder, nose gunner George Deputy in the head; and bombardier Richard McDowell in the leg. Demonstrating the tenacity and courage that has characterized Bill Hathaway throughout his career, Lieutenant Hathaway gave his pilot a course to Turkey, and, while medics dressed the wounds of the other two airmen, he assumed Deputy's position in the nose turret, and fired at the German fighters that continued to buzz his aircraft. Despite his valiant effort, the plane was crippled and continued to lose altitude. After German fighters took out a second engine, the pilot gave the order to bail out. Lieutenant Hathaway, and other members of the crew, donned their parachutes and jumped. Two crew, copilot David Kistler and waist gunner Ben Matthews, were killed when their parachutes failed to open. Lieutenant Hathaway and two others were taken prisoner upon landing, later being reunited with the remainder of the B-17 crew. Ultimately, these American heroes were imprisoned in Bucharest by German forces, where they remained until Romania was liberated by Russian allied soldiers in August, 1944. For his extraordinary heroism and bravery, the Air Force this week honored Senator Hathaway, and fellow crew members Herman Hucke and Richard McDowell, with the Distinguished Flying Cross. The ceremony at the Officer's Club at Bolling Air Force Base Monday afternoon provided yet another distinguished recognition for Senator Bill Hathaway, who represented Maine for 13 years in Congress. Since leaving Congress, he has remained active and engaged in public service, including time as a commissioner and chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. In reviewing the courageous actions of Lieutenant Hathaway and his crew today, I am reminded of the words of President John F. Kennedy, who said, ``In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'' Well, how fortunate we are that those few generations were blessed with men like Bill Hathaway, Herman Hucke, Richard McDowell, and other members of the crew, seemingly ordinary Americans from small towns and big cities all across our Nation who performed extraordinary deeds in service to their country. So I am proud to join with the Air Force, the President, and the people of Maine and a grateful Nation in honoring Senator Hathaway, and his fellow crew, for their outstanding service. This recognition is well-deserved and, certainly, long overdue.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's aviation security network. Last year, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly. We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues. But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must- do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done'', because we are only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system. I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to this day, is the lax cargo security infrastructure. The Department of Transportation Inspector General will warn in a soon-to-be-released report that the existing system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand. Moreover, according to a June 10 Washington Post report, internal Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen passengers and luggage. This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And time is not on our side. We must act now. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the Transportation Security Administration to submit a detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the current system. And while the TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5 percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance, training and background checks for cargo handlers. and funding for screening and detection equipment. On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, women, and children. This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set last year. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her leadership, once again, on this most important amendment to the Department of Defense authorization. I commend her for her commitment and perseverance on this issue. Ultimately, we will prevail. I hope that will occur on this reauthorization. I am pleased to join my colleague in support of this amendment to repeal the ban on abortions at overseas military hospitals, an amendment whose time has long since come. Year after year, time after time, debate after debate, we revisit the issue of women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit, and eliminate a woman's right to choose. Think of Yogi Berra: I have the feeling of deja vu all over again. To that, I add: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here we are debating the issue again. The most recent changes ought to truly give Members pause; all the more impetus to ensure that things don't stay the same. We must remember that when we are considering this Defense authorization during a time of war, when Americans, both civilian and military are fighting terrorism all across the globe, both men and women. In fact, more than 34,000 women were serving overseas as of April this year. We have combined, between women in the service and dependents, more than 100,000 abroad. We recognize the impact that the failure to repeal this ban has on so many of these women. Think of the changes that have occurred since 1973 when the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time a woman's right to choose. That landmark decision was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive health decisions. Importantly, while it has not always been easy, that right stands protected today; that is, unless, you happen to be a female member of the Armed Forces or a female dependent of a military member stationed overseas. How ironic it is that the very people who are fighting to preserve our freedoms, those who are on the front lines defending this war on terrorism or other parts of the globe, are supporting those who are fighting, are currently the least protected in terms of the right to make choices about their own personal health and reproductive decisions. That is why I stand to join my colleague, Senator Murray, once again, in overturning this 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, as we all know. It is a ban without merit or reason that put the reproductive health of these women at risk. Specifically, as we know, the ban denies the right to choose for female military personnel and dependents. It effectively denies those women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the armed services safe and legal medical care simply because they were assigned duty in another country. What kind of reward is that? Why is it that Congress would want to punish those women who so bravely serve our country overseas by denying them the rights that are guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution? Our task in this debate is to make sure that all of America's women, including those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and military dependents, are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose. Let's review the history of this issue. First and foremost, I remind my colleagues since 1979 the Federal law has prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions at military hospitals. However, from 1979 to 1988, women could use their own personal funds to pay for the medical care they need. In 1988, the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting the performance of any abortions at military hospitals even if it was paid for out of a woman's private funds--a policy which truly defies logic. In January of 1993, President Clinton lifted the ban by Executive order, restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with private, non-Defense Department funds. Then, in 1995, through the very bill we authorize today, the House International Security Committee reinstated this ban which was retained in the conference. That effort kicked off the debate which we are now having today. Let me reiterate--and it is a point that needs to be made perfectly clear--President Clinton's Executive order did not change existing law prohibiting the use of Federal funds for abortion, and it did not require medical providers to perform those abortions. In fact, all three branches of the military have conscience clauses which permit medical personnel with moral, religious, or ethical objections to abortion not to participate in the procedure. I believe that is a reasonable measure. With that chronology fresh in everyone's mind, we should state for the record to the opponents of this amendment that the argument that changing current law means that military personnel and military facilities are charged with performing abortions, and that this, in turn, means that American taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortions, is wholly and fundamentally incorrect. Every hospital that performs the surgery, every physician that performs any procedure on any patient must determine the cost of that procedure. That includes the time, the supplies, the materials, the overhead, the insurance, anything that is included in the expense of performing that procedure is included in the cost that is paid by private funds. Public funds are not used for the performance of abortions in this instance. That is an important distinction to reinforce today. I know it is easy to confuse the debate, to obfuscate the issues when, in fact, what we are talking about is a woman using her own private insurance or money in support of that procedure. We are not talking about using Federal funds. This amendment we are fighting for is to lift the ban on privately funded abortions paid for with a woman's private funds. That is what we need to understand today. That is what this issue is all about. A woman would have the ability to have access to a constitutional right when it comes to her reproductive freedom to use her own funds, her own health insurance, for access to this procedure. I think when it comes to health care and safety of an American soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or their dependents, our armed services should have no better friend and ally than the Congress. I would argue that is the case in most situations, but obviously there is a different standard when it comes to the health of a woman and her reproductive decisions. Timing is everything because for those women who are in the military or were military dependents overseas between 1993 and 1996, they were able to have access to abortion services using their own private funds at a military hospital. If it is true that timing is everything, all those women who served overseas since 1996 have lost everything when it comes to making that most fundamental, personal, difficult decision. I repeat that--it is a very difficult decision. It is a very personal decision. It is a decision that should be made between a woman, her doctor, her family. It is a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right that should extend to women in the military overseas, not just within the boundaries of the United States. I cannot understand how anyone could rationalize that we could somehow discriminate against our women who are serving in the military because they happen to be abroad. I think it is regrettable because it is shortchanging women in the military and the military depends on women serving. We could not have an all-volunteer force without women serving in the military. I think it is regrettable that somehow we have demeaned women, in terms of this very difficult decision that they have to make. There has been example upon example given to us, to my colleague Senator Murray, about the trying circumstances that this prohibition has placed on women who serve in the military abroad. I do not think for one moment anybody should minimize or underestimate the emotional, physical hardship that this ban has imposed, a ban that prohibits a woman from using her own private health insurance, her own private funds to make her own constitutional decision when she happens to be in the military serving abroad. The ban on abortions in military hospitals coerce the women who serve our country into making decisions and choices they would not otherwise make. As one doctor, a physician from Oregon, recalls his days as a Navy doctor stationed in the Philippines, he describes the experiences and hardships that result from this policy. Women have to travel long distances in order to obtain a legal abortion. Travel arrangements were difficult and expensive. In order to take leave, they had to justify taking emergency leave to their commanding officer. Imagine that circumstance. So that everybody knows. Some women, alternatively, have turned to local illegal abortions. In other circumstances, their dignity was offended and often their health was placed at risk, which was certainly reinforced by the letter that was sent to both Senator Murray and me from Lieutenant General Kennedy, who is now retired. She was the highest ranking woman in the military. She talked about the humiliation and the demeaning circumstances in which many women were placed, not to mention putting their health at risk. I hope we can reconcile the realities of the existing ban by overturning this prohibition in law and granting to women in the military the same constitutional right that is afforded women who live within the boundaries of the United States of America. I never thought that women should leave their constitutional rights at the proverbial door, but that is what this ban has done. These constitutional rights are not territorial. Women who serve their country should be afforded the same rights that women here in America have. I think this ban is not consistent with the principles which our Armed Forces are fighting to protect, and which the American people so overwhelmingly support. I hope we move forward, and I hope we would understand that women in the military and their dependents overseas deserve the same rights that women have here in this country. They have and should have the protections of the Constitution, no matter where they live. I hope the Senate will overturn that ban and will support the amendment offered by Senator Murray and myself. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE. As much time as I may consume.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at closing the dangerous cargo security loophole in our Nation's aviation security network. Last year, with the passage of the Aviation and Security Act of 2001, we reinvented aviation security. We overturned the status quo, and I am proud of the work we did. We put the Federal Government in charge of security and we have made significant strides toward restoring the confidence of the American people that it is safe to fly. We no longer have a system in which the financial ``bottom line'' interferes with protecting the flying public. We also addressed the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, cockpit security, and numerous other issues. But there is more work to be done. We must not lose focus. If we are to fully confront the aviation security challenges we face in the aftermath of September 11, we must remain aggressive. We need a ``must- do'' attitude, not excuses about what ``can't be done'', because we are only as safe as the weakest link in our aviation security system. I believe one of the most troubling shortcomings, which persists to this day, is the lax cargo security infrastructure. The Department of Transportation Inspector General will warn in a soon-to-be-released report that the existing system is ``easily circumvented.'' This must not be allowed to stand. Moreover, according to a June 10 Washington Post report, internal Transportation Security Administration documents warn of an increased risk of an attack designed to exploit this vulnerability because TSA has been focused primarily on meeting its new mandates to screen passengers and luggage. This is clear evidence that cargo security needs to be bolstered. And time is not on our side. We must act now. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tackle this issue by directing the Transportation Security Administration to submit a detailed cargo security plan to Congress that will address the shortcomings in the current system. And while the TSA is designing and implementing this plan, my bill would require interim security measures to be put in place immediately. The interim security plan would include random screening of at least 5 percent of all cargo, an authentication policy designed to ensure that terrorists are not able to impersonate legitimate shippers, audits of each phase of the shipping process in order to police compliance, training and background checks for cargo handlers. and funding for screening and detection equipment. On September 11, terrorists exposed the vulnerability of our commercial aviation network in the most horrific fashion. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was a major step in the right direction, but we must always stay one step ahead of those who would commit vicious acts of violence on our soil aimed at innocent men, women, and children. This bill is designed to build on the foundation we set last year. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical matter.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for myself and Senator Durbin that would ensure that U.S. funded activities in Afghanistan support the basic human rights of women and women's participation and leadership in all areas of society, development, and governance. Importantly, it also specifies that direct aid should be targeted to the Ministry of Women's Affairs, which will play a critical role in the new government. Women in Afghanistan have made significant progress since the Taliban was removed from power last year, but there is still a long way to go before women are restored to the place they held in society and government before the Taliban took power in 1996. As I told Chairman Karzai when I visited the country in February, if he is truly to restore the people's faith and confidence in the Afghan government, women cannot be excluded from the reconstruction process. The recent loya jirga did make some strides in the right direction. Eleven percent of the participants were women, although only 20 of the 180 total women were elected--with the rest being appointed. Also, the Minister of the Women's Affairs Ministry, Sima Simar, was one of the two Deputy Chairs of the loya jirga. Yet, clearly, much remains to be done before Afghan women will fully rebuild their health, their education, their welfare, their security, and their self-dignity. Before the Taliban, Afghan women enjoyed both stature and freedom. In fact, many Americans may be unaware that Afghan women were not only well educated, they constituted 70 percent of the nation's school teachers, half the government's civilian workers, and 40 percent of the doctors in the hospital. We are all now aware that with the rise of the Taliban, the lives of Afghan women dramatically changed. Women were banished from the workforce. They were not allowed to earn an living or to support themselves or their family, even if they were the sole family breadwinner. Tens of thousands of women widowed by decades of war had no option to provide for their families. Many turned to begging and prostitution. Girls could not attend school and women were expelled from universities. In fact, incredibly, women were prohibited from even leaving their homes at all unless accompanied by a close male relative, even in the event of a medical emergency for themselves or their children. These women were under house arrest, prisoners in their own home. And, if that wasn't bad enough, they were prisoners within themselves. The Taliban went to great and inhumane lengths to strip women of their sense of pride and personhood. Afghan women were forced to wear a burqa, a head to toe covering, to make them invisible to the world. And for those who dared tread upon or flout these laws, penalties for violations of Taliban law ranged from beatings to public floggings and executions--all state sanctioned. Of course, the Taliban is gone now. Women are slowly returning to school and to work. They are beginning to return to their homes from refugee camps. Some are even taking part in the new Afghan government. But problems still exist. Afghan women still make up 75 percent or more of the refugees and internally displaced in camps, urban areas, and villages. Afghan women still do not have access to sufficient primary health care services, including pre- and postnatal care, leading to one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. And it is believed that more than 90 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, which disqualifies them from participation in government. Every member of society has a role to play in rebuilding, and the role of women is especially important. Throughout Afghanistan's years of war, it was women who were responsible for food, shelter, and other basic human needs. Now, during Afghanistan's massive redevelopment, impowering women is critical to improving education, primary health, and overall development. Women must be taught the skills they need and be given access to the necessary resources to take control of their own lives and in turn foster full redevelopment of their country. The United States has been a leader in assisting Afghanistan, in fact, the United States is the largest single provider of assistance to the Afghan people, making substantial contributions to emergency relief and humanitarian efforts. While we have done much for Afghanistan, completing our mission there will require more. Strong and continued support from the United States will ensure that the advances made by Afghan women since the fall of the Taliban will continue and grow, rather than recede. By requiring that United States assistance funds to Afghanistan promote access for Afghan women to health, education, development, governance, and security, this bill will help ensure the prosperity and human rights of all Afghan people. As I've said repeatedly, we are absolutely right to help Afghanistan build for the future, because as we've discovered, we cannot hope for security here until we lay the groundwork for stability there. And we cannot have true stability there if women are left out of the equation. This bill directs that assistance go to support the Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs, an important new ministry that is essential for reestablishing women's human rights, ensuring that women are included in all development efforts, and delivering critical legal, health, education, and economic services to women throughout Afghanistan. The bill also calls for a portion of United States development, humanitarian and relief assistance to be channeled to local Afghan organizations so that these organizations, with an already developed expertise, can achieve results quickly as time is of the essence. Local women's organizations are delivering critical services and have the knowledge and experience to assist the United States in delivering effective relief aid. These groups need our support. The bill also directs financial assistance to build a health infrastructure to deliver high-quality comprehensive health care programs, and an education infrastructure for primary through higher education for Afghan girls and boys, vocational training for women and men, and retraining for former combatants. Education is the heart of progress and nowhere is this more critical than in Afghanistan. Finally, the bill ensures that all United States training of the new Afghan police and security forces include training on the protection of human rights, especially for women, whose rights have been violated for so long. This must end and training for this will give the new authorities the training and knowledge to help stop it. The potential for prosperity in Afghanistan will only be realized when, as in the United States, both men and women have an opportunity to participate and contribute. That is what this bill is all about, ensuring that women have the access needed to participate and contribute in all aspects of rebuilding their country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution for myself and Senators Biden and Sarbanes expressing support for Cyprus' membership to the European Union, EU. After 27 years Cyprus remains a divided nation. As it works to complete final negotiations with the EU, Cyprus will have met all the criteria required of an EU member nation. It is expected that an official invitation for membership will come this December, with accession in 2004. As an EU member, the entire island of Cyprus will see economic benefits. As long as the Turkish-Cypriots recognize this fact, both they and Greek-Cypriots will be on the path towards further economic growth and integration with Europe. All Cypriots will have access to new markets, a freer exchange of goods and services, balanced and sustainable development as well as the free movement of persons, goods and services, and capital. But EU membership is not only about economic prosperity, it is also about human rights. The EU guarantees its members' citizens human, legal and civil rights as well as the means and legal recourse necessary to secure the full application of these fundamental individual rights. Last year Congressman Bilirakis introduced this legislation in the House of Representatives to show that body's support for Cyprus' accession to the EU. We are introducing this legislation today to put the Senate on record as well. Since January, Cypriot President Clerides and Turkish-Cypriot leader Denktash have been meeting in direct talks to seek a resolution of the division of Cyprus. Although the fact that these meetings are taking place is a positive sign, a solution must not be a precondition to EU membership. In fact, the EU Council made this point in the Helsinki Summit in December 1999, when it stated that ``a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union . . . [i]f no settlement has been reached by the completion on accession negotiations, the Council's decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition''. Cyprus' EU membership will be, and has been, a catalyst for the solution of the Cyprus problem. This fact is reflected in the almost 40 direct meetings between President Clerides and Denktash have taken place so far this year. If it were not for Turkey's desire to be an EU member, knowing that other EU members could block this goal, it is questionable whether these talks would even be taking place. That, along with improved economic prosperity and guaranteed human rights, is why it is vital that the Senate go on record as supporting Cyprus' EU membership. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill for myself and Senator Durbin that would ensure that U.S. funded activities in Afghanistan support the basic human rights of women and women's participation and leadership in all areas of society, development, and governance. Importantly, it also specifies that direct aid should be targeted to the Ministry of Women's Affairs, which will play a critical role in the new government. Women in Afghanistan have made significant progress since the Taliban was removed from power last year, but there is still a long way to go before women are restored to the place they held in society and government before the Taliban took power in 1996. As I told Chairman Karzai when I visited the country in February, if he is truly to restore the people's faith and confidence in the Afghan government, women cannot be excluded from the reconstruction process. The recent loya jirga did make some strides in the right direction. Eleven percent of the participants were women, although only 20 of the 180 total women were elected--with the rest being appointed. Also, the Minister of the Women's Affairs Ministry, Sima Simar, was one of the two Deputy Chairs of the loya jirga. Yet, clearly, much remains to be done before Afghan women will fully rebuild their health, their education, their welfare, their security, and their self-dignity. Before the Taliban, Afghan women enjoyed both stature and freedom. In fact, many Americans may be unaware that Afghan women were not only well educated, they constituted 70 percent of the nation's school teachers, half the government's civilian workers, and 40 percent of the doctors in the hospital. We are all now aware that with the rise of the Taliban, the lives of Afghan women dramatically changed. Women were banished from the workforce. They were not allowed to earn an living or to support themselves or their family, even if they were the sole family breadwinner. Tens of thousands of women widowed by decades of war had no option to provide for their families. Many turned to begging and prostitution. Girls could not attend school and women were expelled from universities. In fact, incredibly, women were prohibited from even leaving their homes at all unless accompanied by a close male relative, even in the event of a medical emergency for themselves or their children. These women were under house arrest, prisoners in their own home. And, if that wasn't bad enough, they were prisoners within themselves. The Taliban went to great and inhumane lengths to strip women of their sense of pride and personhood. Afghan women were forced to wear a burqa, a head to toe covering, to make them invisible to the world. And for those who dared tread upon or flout these laws, penalties for violations of Taliban law ranged from beatings to public floggings and executions--all state sanctioned. Of course, the Taliban is gone now. Women are slowly returning to school and to work. They are beginning to return to their homes from refugee camps. Some are even taking part in the new Afghan government. But problems still exist. Afghan women still make up 75 percent or more of the refugees and internally displaced in camps, urban areas, and villages. Afghan women still do not have access to sufficient primary health care services, including pre- and postnatal care, leading to one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. And it is believed that more than 90 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, which disqualifies them from participation in government. Every member of society has a role to play in rebuilding, and the role of women is especially important. Throughout Afghanistan's years of war, it was women who were responsible for food, shelter, and other basic human needs. Now, during Afghanistan's massive redevelopment, impowering women is critical to improving education, primary health, and overall development. Women must be taught the skills they need and be given access to the necessary resources to take control of their own lives and in turn foster full redevelopment of their country. The United States has been a leader in assisting Afghanistan, in fact, the United States is the largest single provider of assistance to the Afghan people, making substantial contributions to emergency relief and humanitarian efforts. While we have done much for Afghanistan, completing our mission there will require more. Strong and continued support from the United States will ensure that the advances made by Afghan women since the fall of the Taliban will continue and grow, rather than recede. By requiring that United States assistance funds to Afghanistan promote access for Afghan women to health, education, development, governance, and security, this bill will help ensure the prosperity and human rights of all Afghan people. As I've said repeatedly, we are absolutely right to help Afghanistan build for the future, because as we've discovered, we cannot hope for security here until we lay the groundwork for stability there. And we cannot have true stability there if women are left out of the equation. This bill directs that assistance go to support the Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs, an important new ministry that is essential for reestablishing women's human rights, ensuring that women are included in all development efforts, and delivering critical legal, health, education, and economic services to women throughout Afghanistan. The bill also calls for a portion of United States development, humanitarian and relief assistance to be channeled to local Afghan organizations so that these organizations, with an already developed expertise, can achieve results quickly as time is of the essence. Local women's organizations are delivering critical services and have the knowledge and experience to assist the United States in delivering effective relief aid. These groups need our support. The bill also directs financial assistance to build a health infrastructure to deliver high-quality comprehensive health care programs, and an education infrastructure for primary through higher education for Afghan girls and boys, vocational training for women and men, and retraining for former combatants. Education is the heart of progress and nowhere is this more critical than in Afghanistan. Finally, the bill ensures that all United States training of the new Afghan police and security forces include training on the protection of human rights, especially for women, whose rights have been violated for so long. This must end and training for this will give the new authorities the training and knowledge to help stop it. The potential for prosperity in Afghanistan will only be realized when, as in the United States, both men and women have an opportunity to participate and contribute. That is what this bill is all about, ensuring that women have the access needed to participate and contribute in all aspects of rebuilding their country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the senior Senator from Texas for his remarks. I am concerned that the study may not be completed in sufficient time to help the group life insurers avail themselves of the help that the property and casualty companies are getting in this bill. I would therefore ask the Senator from South Dakota, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, if he believes the needs of group life insurers are adequately addressed in this bill or its companion measure, passed by the House last November?

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the provisions in this supplemental that provide financial aid to the New England groundfish fishery. This crisis is not caused by natural disaster, but by the failure of our fisheries management system to effectively manage marine resources and dependent industries. I worked with my colleagues from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire to get this funding in the bill. And I want to thank the Chairman, Senator Byrd, and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, for understanding the need for this funding. The bill includes $11 million for economic assistance to fishermen and fishing communities affected by Federal closures and restrictions on fishing. My State of Maine will receive $2 million as a result of this provision. States have the option of developing locally- appropriate spending plans for this money or asking NMFS to distribute the money, to ensure that it goes to those who need it most. It also provides $5 million for direct economic assistance to those in the industry affected by court-ordered management measures, in return for their participation in activities that support port and coastal security. In this way, we can meet two important goals, helping fishermen who temporarily cannot fish and helping coastal communities participate in national security efforts. Over the past several months, New England fishermen have been watching their livelihoods disappear. Litigation was brought against the National Marine Fisheries Service for not rebuilding stocks fast enough, and this litigation ended in court-ordered management measures that would have resulted in more than 4,000 lost days at sea for Maine's fishermen alone. The court ignored the negotiated settlement reached by the interested parties and issued its ruling five days before the fishing season started. These numbers pale in comparison to the economic, cultural, and historical value of the New England groundfish fishery. In Maine alone, 26,000 people have jobs directly related to the fishing industry and last year groundfish alone accounted for $17.7 million in fish landings. Nationally, the fishing industry contributes over $7 billion to the U.S. economy. While the Judge reconsidered her original ruling and adopted the negotiated settlement, the number of days that fishermen can target groundfish is reduced by a minimum of 20 percent. And that translates into thousands of lost fishing days and millions of dollars lost to the regional economy. The economic assistance in this bill will not fix the flaws in the management system, but it will help our fishermen through a difficult transition period while we fix the management problems that left NMFS facing 104 lawsuits at the beginning of May. I am the Ranking Member of the Commerce Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and I am working with Chairman Kerry to get the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act preauthorized so that we can stop managing our fisheries by litigation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd-Stevens amendment that would protect the funding for the airline financial support program established by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001. Congress and the President moved swiftly after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to provide the airline industry with critical financial support to avoid a crisis in our national transportation network and in our economy. The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act signed into law on September 22, 2001 was designed to give airlines access to up to $15 billion in assistance. It included $5 billion for direct aid to pay for industry losses associated with the results of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. It also included $10 billion for loan guarantees. The Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill which we are debating this week would have reduced the size of the loan guarantee provision to $4 billion. The Byrd-Stevens amendment before the Senate for consideration this afternoon would strike the provision in the supplemental and restore the program to the full $10 billion level. I voted for the legislation that established this important financial assistance program in order to ensure the financial viability of the airline industry--which generates 3 percent of the gross domestic a product, almost $273 billion. There is no question as to the significance of airline service not only to our quality of life, but also our national economy. In my home state of Maine, over 56,000 jobs, $1.29 billion in payroll, and $3.73 billion in sales are tied to the availability of scheduled commercial air service. In the wake of the attacks of September 11, thousands of airline employees lost their jobs and remain laid-off. Most major airlines continue to operate more limited schedules than before September 11. United Airlines and American Airlines both announced layoffs of 20,000 personnel and schedule reductions of about 20 percent. The airlines have begun to re-hire some employees and restore service, but we are still not where we were prior to September 11. Approximately 750 to 1,000 aircraft that were in operation before the terrorist attacks are out of service to this day. According to the Air Transport Association, the airlines suffered losses of about $1.4 billion during the aviation system lockdown that followed the tragic events of September 11. And they have continued to lose money. Before September 11, the airline industry was expected to lose $1 to $2 billion in 2001. In the aftermath of September 11, the losses exceeded $7 billion, and could have been even worse if not for the financial assistance package passed by Congress and signed by the President. US Airways, the only commercial carrier to serve all six of Maine's commercial airports, warns that without the loan guarantees, it may be forced into bankruptcy. US Airways is a major carrier providing service along the Northeast corridor, and with some hub operations based at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, suffered significantly as a result of increased security requirements and reduced service levels to Washington. I think the numbers speak for themselves. I believe it is critical that we restore this funding, and I urge my colleagues to join in a strong show of support of this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the policy of the United States at the 19th Annual Meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO. I am introducing this resolution today as our delegates prepare for the upcoming NASCO meeting in Torshvn, Faroe Islands which begins on June 3, 2002. At this meeting NASCO will set the annual allocation of commercial Atlantic salmon quotas and debate numerous issues related to protecting Atlantic salmon. NASCO is the international body which manages Atlantic salmon stocks and sets the annual allocation of commercial Atlantic salmon quotas. As such, the effective management of Atlantic salmon requires the cooperation of the member nations in this voluntary regime. Unfortunately, several member nations routinely take actions that undermine these efforts. Salmon originating in the rivers of Maine and the other New England states migrate to feed in the waters west of Greenland where they are subject to harvest in the West Greenland salmon fishery. Scientific analysis indicates that 66 percent of the fish caught in West Greenland's fishery comes from North American stocks. A significant amount of these fish are believed to be of U.S. origin. These harvested fish directly affect the rebuilding programs in Maine and the rest of New England. Protecting the stocks of Atlantic salmon is an ongoing issue which has state, national, and international components. The situation is so serious in the United States that we have closed all U.S. Atlantic salmon fisheries and have taken the critical step of listing populations of Atlantic salmon as endangered under the U S. Endangered Species Act. At the state and national level, Maine and the other New England states have taken significant steps at great cost to protect the spawning habitats of Atlantic salmon, but these efforts alone will not protect the Atlantic salmon. The biggest threat to the success of the salmon recovery plans is not having fish available to return to these improved habitats. The U.S. should continue to support a zero commercial mortality limit until these stocks can be rebuilt. This is a necessary step toward rebuilding the salmon population in our rivers. This resolution expresses the Senate's belief that the United States remain firmly opposed to commercial intercept fishing which takes wild Atlantic salmon, advocate the use of science in making international Atlantic salmon resource decisions, support adoption of a long-term rebuilding goal, develop a plan for the recovery of North American salmon, and advocate the use of sampling programs by all nations to determine the origin of harvested salmon. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, I am dedicated to protecting Atlantic salmon. This resolution is a critical step in ensuring that the international management plan approved by NASCO will compliment the efforts that we have made at the state and national level to protect critical Atlantic salmon habitats. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the compromise trade package that is now before the Senate and to praise both sides for recognizing the need of retaining the linkage of trade promotion authority (TPA) and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) during floor consideration. I would first like to commend Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their efforts in crafting this package. Not only have they worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that it is the product of principled compromise, but they have also sought to ensure that many of my concerns regarding the deficiencies of past extensions of trade authority--most notably, a lack of accountability and consideration of the needs of small businesses--have been addressed. 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. I would also like to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their tenacity as we worked through the health care provisions in the TAA package during the last four weeks. Their commitment to this effort made it possible for the three of us to develop this agreement, and while both sides have made significant concessions to finalize this deal, we believe these health care provisions are a solid contribution to the TAA package. At the beginning of the TPA-TAA debate in the Senate, everyone believed the fight over health care would doom Senate passage, but together we have proved them wrong. On that note, I would also like to commend the staff of both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley who worked so hard to develop this compromise against tremendous odds. The Finance Committee has been working on the TPA and TAA legislation for nearly a year now, and, as a member of that committee, I have been extensively involved in its development. Through hearings and markups, along with numerous discussions, we have extensively debated this legislation--and will likely continue to do so until the final vote. My decision to support this package, and the TPA section in particular, was by no means 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 have been concerned that both Republican and Democrat administrations approached the enforcement of U.S. trade laws not with vigor, but with benign neglect. However, when the Finance Committee marked up this fast-track legislation in December, I supported it precisely because it does 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! 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 no obligation to also work toward forging a system that provides these trade-impacted Americans with the new skills needed to gain new employment. And lest anyone question the need or value of the program, consider the fact that TAA has served not only as a life-saver but also as an opportunity-creator for individuals to be retrained so they can re- enter the workforce as quickly as possible. Since October 1997 to today, 9,200 Mainers have benefitted from TAA. Nationally, during this same time-frame, almost 1 million people were covered by TAA. In Maine right now, 1,102 people are receiving TAA benefits. In fact, in Maine it's been a whole litany of closings from a variety of industries since NAFTA: Carleton Woolen Mills lost 600 jobs, Dexter Shoe Company lost 550 jobs, Kimberly-Clark lost 450 jobs while Mead Paper lost 472 jobs and G.H. Bass footwear lost 355 jobs, as did Cole- Haan Manufacturing, while Eastland Shoe Manufacturing lost 250 jobs and Saucony closed with 110 workers, and just recently, Hathaway Shirts, one of the oldest and last remaining domestic shirt-makers, with 300 workers. Many of these people turned to TAA. The final provisions of the legislation before us were in question up until the last minute, but they make vital improvements and expansions to the program, including several I have fought for. 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 bill also includes my proposal to create a new pilot program under the Small Business Administration (SBA) that will test how TAA can help those seeking to start their own business by assisting with development plans without the loss of their TAA benefits. It also allows for customized, employer-sponsored training programs where a worker can learn a specialized skill while on the job. And the legislation also establishes a performance accountability and reporting system. A concern expressed to me by Maine officials has been that, without taking into account the economic conditions of the states, good systems could be erroneously judged bad due to an economic downturn of a state. By factoring-in this new criteria, we ensure that such a vital component of the overall picture is part of the equation. Beyond these provisions, the TAA legislation also recognizes the fact that it is not only people but communities that can be adversely impacted by job loss or plant relocations. It does so by creating a new Office of Community Trade Adjustment at the Economic Development Administration (EDA) that will work closely with state and local officials to develop a strategic plan when a community suffers massive layoffs. The Office can dispense grants that could prove critical in getting these communities back on track. 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 approximately $2.7 million, forcing them to apply for five different Department of Labor National Emergency Grants and potentially causing a freeze in retraining assistance. By providing $300 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 as part of the NAFTA-TAA program will also be covered through the SAA's codification. And, as I stated earlier, bipartisanship also prevailed on the contentious health care issue. Since the end of last year, the health care provision seemed to be the one that would divide us and perhaps even bring down this trade package. Well, Madam President, through the hard work and dedication of many offices, this obstacle has been averted. The health care compromise included in this agreement provides a 70 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. The tax credit is also refundable and, as such, provides the full level of the tax credit regardless of whether the individual will owe any taxes that year. Trade-affected workers can use this tax credit toward the cost of COBRA health coverage from their former employer, if that is available, or they can purchase private health coverage through purchasing groups, state high-risk pools, or other group purchasing arrangements established by the states. Workers can also use the tax credit toward their current private health coverage. Through these and other provisions, what we have before us today is a bill that recognizes that our desire to trade is dependent on our ability to assist those adversely affected by trade. An expanded TAA program will be part and parcel of an extension of trade negotiating authority--and American workers will be provided with the assistance they need and deserve. In that light, as the world grows ever closer, the implications of our trade agreements are more critical--and more magnified--than ever before. 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 nontariff trade barriers. That's why, as a Member of the House in 1986, I lamented that we were running up ``the white flag of surrender in the international marketplace.'' The ``white flag'' is perhaps best represented by the shoe industry, which is one that has borne the brunt of our trade policies. In 1986, for example, it experienced an 82 percent import penetration with over 750 million pairs of shoes entering this country annually. Japan, on the other hand, allowed only 1 million pairs of shoes to be imported and Brazil had a 100 percent tariff effectively barring imports. The U.S. industry filed a trade relief petition under section 201, and a five year temporary quota was recommended by the International Trade Commission (ITC), but the Administration did not act on it. In short, we abandoned our workers, our industry and our trade policy in the pursuit of free trade. And the surrender of our rights under our own trade laws has 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 worked to ensure that the ATPA legislation contains at least a 15 year tariff phaseout for rubber footwear, which is supported by the domestic industry. As it was originally written, the ATPA would have signaled the end of our rubber footwear industry by setting a precedent for all other countries. How? By matching this tariff phaseout to the seven years left under the NAFTA, other countries in future agreements would unquestionably seek the same. During negotiations over NAFTA, the U.S. industry fought to be excluded but grudgingly accepted a 15 year phaseout as a recognition of their import-sensitivity. This is exemplified over the past decades by the decrease we've seen in jobs in this industry from 26,000 workers in the early 1970s to 2,600 today. And I might add, more than a third of those remaining jobs are located in Maine. So to have subjected this industry to the same phase-out date as that required by NAFTA would have put them at yet another debilitating disadvantage by depriving them of another eight years of adjustment. So when it comes to ATPA, to do anything but provide at least the 15 years prescribed under NAFTA would have been unconscionable. 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 bill makes significant progress on the issues of labor and the environment and I believe it is both a necessary and important distinction that separates this proposal from prior approaches to fast track. 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 legislation 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. And two other Maine industries--the import-sensitive salmon acquaculture industry that was the target of dumping by Chile, and the rubber footwear industry that's been severely impact by past trade agreements--stand to benefit from commitments I've received from the administration to stand firm on antidumping laws and to negotiate aggressively on their behalf in future agreements. I have also worked in the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATP) to provide the rubber footwear industry with a comparable tariff provision to that which they received in the 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 am pleased that this legislation now contains this same 15 year phaseout because without this we would be setting a precedent that would be demanded by other countries as well. 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 one of every five manufacturing jobs. Given these facts, it is 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 important 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. Small businesses also face the biggest hurdles to engaging in international trade, even as it provides them with best opportunity for growth. So we must ensure their views and needs are addressed in any agreement reached, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for including my provision to create an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business and my proposal requiring the USTR to call for a small business advocate at the WTO in order to ensure that small businesses have advocates at the table during all negotiations. Finally, the package now 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. The bottom line is international trade is inextricably linked to the economic future of the United States. 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, and I urge its adoption. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and good friend Senator Bingaman to introduce the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. We are introducing this bill because of the critical importance of outpatient health care services and the devastating impact that the substantial reduction in Medicare payments for outpatient services will have on the delivery of care. Our legislation will increase payment rates for outpatient care to adequate levels to ensure appropriate access to outpatient care for our Nation's seniors. In addition, since the implementation of the new outpatient prospective payment system in August 2000, it has become evident that changes are needed, and this legislation proposes important reforms that will make the system work better for Medicare and for our Nation's seniors. Our Nation's seniors rely upon outpatient care delivered through the Medicare program. This is the result of trends in medical care that will continue to place a greater emphasis on the outpatient setting. According to Medpac, the number of outpatient visits increased 73 percent during the 1990s and nearly 5 percent in 2001 alone. New technologies and advances in medicine have made it possible for more and more care to be provided on an outpatient basis, which eliminates the need for an overnight hospital stay. This reduces the cost of care and gets the patient home sooner where recovery can begin. This trend will continue and underscores the importance of having an appropriate Medicare payment system for outpatient care. Without these vitally needed changes in the Medicare outpatient payment system, our medical care infrastructure will suffer and patient care will be harmed. This March, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medpac, estimated that the aggregate margin for outpatient services would be minus 16.3 percent in 2002. Congress created temporary additional payments, or transitional ``pass-through'' payments, for certain innovative medical devices, drugs and biologicals in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, BBRA, of 1999. By establishing the pass-through pool, Congress ensured Medicare beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, is required by law to make a proportional reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In March 2002, CMS announced a dramatic reduction in pass-through payments of 63.6 percent. CMS took steps to avoid even greater reductions in the pass through payments by incorporating 75 percent of the device costs into the base ambulatory payment classifications, APC, amounts. Due to a Congressionally-mandated requirement, CMS was required to make this adjustment on a budget neutral basis, with no recognition for the impact of this shift in payment. As a result, Medicare payments were shifted from low-tech services to high-tech services. In addition, incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget- neutrality adjustment of minus 7.2 percent, causing a substantial reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts for 2002. These shifts in payments that resulted from actions Congress took in the BBRA are greater than intended when it was first enacted. It is clear that corrections to the system are needed. Ironically, if these problems with outpatient payments are not corrected, hospitals will be forced to admit patients into the hospital for treatment that could have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis. To address these problems, we are introducing the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. This comprehensive legislation would address problems within the current Medicare hospital outpatient payment system. Specifically, it would address the problems outlined here by; increasing extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, APC, rates by 10 percent and requiring an increase in overall outpatient payments to 90 percent of overall costs, still 10 percent less than hospitals spend in delivering necessary outpatient care, but an improvement on the current payment of just 84 percent of costs; limiting the pro rata reduction in pass- through payments to 20 percent; and limiting the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent. Furthermore, the bill improves and extends transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extends the provision to designated eye and ear specialty hospitals. We believe these changes are necessary if we are to preserve the quality of care in the outpatient setting that seniors deserve. Our Nation's seniors rely upon the health care services provided in the outpatient setting and we invite our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus and Bingaman. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called Parents as Scholars. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, (MOE), dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first.'' Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002 provides State with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work, even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a bachelor's degree, with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's Parents as Scholars, PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post- secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first two years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of class time, study time, employment or work experience for at least 24 hours per week, the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second two years, for those enrolled in a four year program, the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination of activities, including class and study time, work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of welfare. The experience of several Parents as Scholars graduates were recently captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one PaS graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated, barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible.'' These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. And, while these women have been able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks to the good will and the support of the people of Maine, PaS has strained the State's budget. Giving States the option to use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently, and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the Federal program for too long.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators Baucus and Bingaman. This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program called Parents as Scholars. This program, which uses State Maintenance of Effort, (MOE), dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort. We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first.'' Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency. As we have seen in Maine that education has played a significant role in breaking the cycle of welfare and giving parents the skills necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance. The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2002 provides State with the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same assistance as they would receive if they were working. We all know that supports like income supplements, child care subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and remain, self-sufficient. Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from college requires a great deal of commitment and work, even for someone who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are significant challenges, and that's even before taking into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a bachelor's degree, with a four year program at the University of Maine currently costing almost $25,000. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to sustain their families while they get a degree. The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's Parents as Scholars, PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of $8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a post- secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant difference. Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to pull their families out of the cycle of welfare. Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the successful Maine model, the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education also participate in work. During the first two years of their participation in these education programs, students must participate in a combination of class time, study time, employment or work experience for at least 24 hours per week, the same hourly requirement that the President proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal. During the second two years, for those enrolled in a four year program, the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to class and study time, or engage in a combination of activities, including class and study time, work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic institution. The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will secure them a good job and that will get them off and keep them off of welfare. The experience of several Parents as Scholars graduates were recently captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this program is a critically important step in moving towards self- sufficiency. In this report one PaS graduate said of her experience, ``If it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated, barely getting by . . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.'' Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able to support my daughter and I on the tips that I earned. I would encourage anyone to better their education if possible.'' These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from access to post-secondary education. And, while these women have been able to attend college and pursue good jobs thanks to the good will and the support of the people of Maine, PaS has strained the State's budget. Giving States the option to use Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left TANF permanently, and isn't that our ultimate goal? I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and it has been missing from the Federal program for too long.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague and good friend Senator Bingaman to introduce the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. We are introducing this bill because of the critical importance of outpatient health care services and the devastating impact that the substantial reduction in Medicare payments for outpatient services will have on the delivery of care. Our legislation will increase payment rates for outpatient care to adequate levels to ensure appropriate access to outpatient care for our Nation's seniors. In addition, since the implementation of the new outpatient prospective payment system in August 2000, it has become evident that changes are needed, and this legislation proposes important reforms that will make the system work better for Medicare and for our Nation's seniors. Our Nation's seniors rely upon outpatient care delivered through the Medicare program. This is the result of trends in medical care that will continue to place a greater emphasis on the outpatient setting. According to Medpac, the number of outpatient visits increased 73 percent during the 1990s and nearly 5 percent in 2001 alone. New technologies and advances in medicine have made it possible for more and more care to be provided on an outpatient basis, which eliminates the need for an overnight hospital stay. This reduces the cost of care and gets the patient home sooner where recovery can begin. This trend will continue and underscores the importance of having an appropriate Medicare payment system for outpatient care. Without these vitally needed changes in the Medicare outpatient payment system, our medical care infrastructure will suffer and patient care will be harmed. This March, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medpac, estimated that the aggregate margin for outpatient services would be minus 16.3 percent in 2002. Congress created temporary additional payments, or transitional ``pass-through'' payments, for certain innovative medical devices, drugs and biologicals in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act, BBRA, of 1999. By establishing the pass-through pool, Congress ensured Medicare beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, is required by law to make a proportional reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In March 2002, CMS announced a dramatic reduction in pass-through payments of 63.6 percent. CMS took steps to avoid even greater reductions in the pass through payments by incorporating 75 percent of the device costs into the base ambulatory payment classifications, APC, amounts. Due to a Congressionally-mandated requirement, CMS was required to make this adjustment on a budget neutral basis, with no recognition for the impact of this shift in payment. As a result, Medicare payments were shifted from low-tech services to high-tech services. In addition, incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget- neutrality adjustment of minus 7.2 percent, causing a substantial reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts for 2002. These shifts in payments that resulted from actions Congress took in the BBRA are greater than intended when it was first enacted. It is clear that corrections to the system are needed. Ironically, if these problems with outpatient payments are not corrected, hospitals will be forced to admit patients into the hospital for treatment that could have been provided more efficiently on an outpatient basis. To address these problems, we are introducing the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002. This comprehensive legislation would address problems within the current Medicare hospital outpatient payment system. Specifically, it would address the problems outlined here by; increasing extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, APC, rates by 10 percent and requiring an increase in overall outpatient payments to 90 percent of overall costs, still 10 percent less than hospitals spend in delivering necessary outpatient care, but an improvement on the current payment of just 84 percent of costs; limiting the pro rata reduction in pass- through payments to 20 percent; and limiting the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent. Furthermore, the bill improves and extends transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extends the provision to designated eye and ear specialty hospitals. We believe these changes are necessary if we are to preserve the quality of care in the outpatient setting that seniors deserve. Our Nation's seniors rely upon the health care services provided in the outpatient setting and we invite our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the resolution that Senator Kerry and I are submitting is very timely and important. As we work here in the Senate today, representatives of nations from around the globe are preparing for the 54th annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to be held in Japan, May 20-24, 2002. At this meeting, the IWC will determine the fate of the world's whales through consideration of proposals to end the current global moratorium on commercial whaling. The adoption of any such proposals by the IWC would mark a major setback in whale conservation. It is imperative that the United States remain firm in its opposition to any proposals to resume commercial whaling and that we, as a Nation, continue to speak out passionately against this practice. It is also time to close one of the loopholes used by nations to continue to whale without regard to the moratorium or established whale sanctuaries. The practice of unnecessary lethal scientific whaling is outdated and the value of the data of such research has been called into question by an international array of scientists who study the same population dynamics questions as those who harvest whales in the name of science. This same whale meat is then processed and sold in the marketplace. These sentiments have been echoed by the Scientific Committee of the IWC which has repeatedly passed resolutions calling for the cessation of lethal scientific whaling, particularly that occurring in designated whale sanctuaries. They have offered to work with all interested parties to design research protocols that will not require scientists to harm or kill whales. Last year, Japan expanded their scientific whaling program over the IWC's objections. The resolution that we are offering expresses the Sense of the Senate that the United States should continue to remain firmly opposed to any resumption of commercial whaling and oppose, at the upcoming IWC meeting, the non-necessary lethal taking of whales for scientific purposes. Commercial whaling has been prohibited for many species for more than sixty years. In 1982, the continued decline of commercially targeted stocks led the IWC to declare a global moratorium on all commercial whaling which went into effect in 1986. The United States was a leader in the effort to establish the moratorium, and since then we have consistently provided a strong voice against commercial whaling and have worked to uphold the moratorium. This resolution reaffirms the United States' strong support for a ban on commercial whaling at a time when our negotiations at the IWC most need that support. Norway, Japan, and other countries have made it clear that they intend to push for the elimination of the moratorium, and for a return to the days when whales were retreated as commodities. The resolution would reiterate the U.S. objection to activities being conducted under reservations to the IWC's moratorium. The resolution would also oppose the proposal to allow a non-member country to join the Convention with a reservation that would allow it to commercially whale. The resolution would also oppose all efforts made at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, to reopen international trade in whale meat or to downlist any whale population. In addition, the IWC, as well as individual nations including the United States, has established whale sanctuaries that would prevent whaling in specified areas even if the moratorium were to be lifted. Despite these efforts to give whale stocks a chance to rebuild, the number of whales harvested has increased in recent years, tripling since the implementation of the global moratorium in 1986. This is a dangerous trend that does not show signs of stopping. Domestically, we work very hard to protect whales in U.S. waters, particularly those considered threatened or endangered. One own laws and regulations are designed to give whales one of the highest standards of protection in the world, and as a result, our own citizens are subject to rules designed to protect against even the accidental taking of whales. Commercial whaling is, of course, strictly prohibited. Given what is asked of our citizens to protect against even accidental injury to whales here in the United States, it would be grossly unfair if we retreated in any way from our position opposing commercial, intentional whaling by other countries. Whales migrate throughout the world's oceans, and as we protect whales in our own waters, so should we act to protect them internationally. Whales are among the most intelligent animals on Earth, and they play an important role in the marine ecosystem. Yet, there is still much about them that we do not know. Resuming the intentional harvest of whales is irresponsible, and it could have ecological consequences that we cannot predict. Therefore, it is premature to even consider easing conservation measures. The right policy is to protect whales across the globe, and to oppose the resumption of commercial whaling. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002. While previous farm bills have provided very little for the State of Maine and the New England region, I am pleased that the conference report before us, while by no means perfect, provides for a more equitable treatment for the farmers in Maine and the Northeast. I have been in touch with the farmers and growers in Maine throughout the development of the 2002 Farm bill, and they, like I, believe the Northeast has been shortchanged in past Farm bills. The State groups, such as the Maine Potato Board, the Maine Wild Blueberry Commission, the Maine Farm Bureau, the Maine Apple Growers, the Northeast Dairy Coalition, the Directors of the State's Farm Service Agency and Maine Rural Development, and the State Conservationist at the National Resource Conservation Service, believe that this conference report starts us down a path toward regional equity from which I would hope we will not stray in the future development of farm policies. In addition, on May 6, Commissioner Robert Spear of the Maine Department of Agriculture wrote me similar thoughts, stating that, ``I believe it is a good improvement over the so-called Freedom to Farm. The bill strengthens the safety net for all farmers, it more equitably distributes Federal farm dollars and it provides strong incentives to improve stewardship''. I would like to submit Commissioner Spears' entire letter for the Record. First and foremost, this past year, I made a pledge to the dairy farmers of Maine that I was committed to see that the safety net they had through the now expired Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact would not be pulled out from under them. This has been my top priority for maintaining a way of life in our rural communities, and I am pleased that the Farm bill provides for a dairy program modeled on our Dairy Compact. I have stated numerous times on this floor that I would have much preferred that the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact be reauthorized along with the inclusion of those Northeast States that surround New England that want to join the compact to ensure that people in the region can get fresh, low-priced fluid milk in their grocery stores. In contrast to the provisions contained in the conference report, the beauty of the Northeast Dairy Compact was that it required no Federal funding. Under the conference report, dairy farmers will get monthly payments over the next 3\1/2\ years when the price of fluid milk drops, not yearly as other commodity programs, but monthly checks that come only when prices are low, and at the very time the producers need a better cash flow to keep the farm and their dairy herds going, as the Northeast Dairy Compact provided. I am very pleased that the dairy funding provided is retroactive to December 1, 2001, as it corresponds with the time when milk prices started to drop in New England and continue to remain low. The dairy farmers in my State will be able to count on approximately $3.2 million in added income from last December through this coming July, when it is predicted that prices may start to climb. These payments may literally save some of our small family farms as the Northeast Compact has done in past years, and I urge the USDA to get these retroactive payments out to the dairy farmers just as soon as possible. In the future, when the price of fresh fluid milk drops below $16.94 per hundredweight, our dairy farmers will receive 45 percent of the difference of that price and the current price of the fluid milk. This will apply to the first 2.4 million pounds of production of fluid milk or for a dairy herd of around 135-140 cows, a small family farm that has forged a way of life in New England for three and four generations. Not only has the dairy safety net been an important provision for me, but a substantial increase in funding for voluntary agriculture conservation programs has been a priority as well. Like the environmental groups I have worked with, such as Environmental Defense and the Environmental Working Group, I am disappointed that the conferees did not keep the Senate's higher funding numbers for funding to farmers to promote conservation in each of our States. But, I am pleased that there is still an 80-percent increase overall for conservation funding in this conference report. The funds going to Maine will at the very least be quadrupled, estimated to be close to $23 million by 2005. This is very important funding for a State that is facing pressures from the environmental impacts of growth and sprawl and pressures to preserve open spaces, and also the need to conserve our water resources, in some cases to restore the habitats of the now endangered Atlantic salmon in eight Downeast rivers, a few which flow through the heart of our Maine Wild Blueberry fields where water is important to both. The conference report also provides $1.03 billion in mandatory funding for rural development programs. Under the Rural Development Community Water Assistance Grant Program, for instance, Maine will receive $3 million of the $30 million in mandatory funding through 2011 to address drought conditions by making rural areas and small communities eligible for grant funding where there is a significant decline in quantity and quality of water. This funding is particularly critical when considering that, like many States on the East Coast, Maine has been experiencing an extended period of drought, so the funding that helps residents deal with drought conditions is of great importance. There are, according to the Maine Emergency Management Agency, 1,700 wells that have now gone dry in the State. Total precipitation for 2001 was the driest in 108 years of precipitation monitoring in the State. Precipitation has actually been below average for 22 of the last 24 months, and while we have been helped somewhat by recent snow and rain, NOAA's National Weather Service climate forecasters see limited relief from the drought in the months to come. Also, the Rural Water and Waste Facility Grants will provide Maine with up to $90 million over 10 years of additional resources to assist small rural communities with their drinking water and wastewater needs. Reauthorization of Rural Development Programs through 2011 will provide Maine with at least $1.5 million over 10 years for regional planning activities and technical assistance to small businesses. Grants to non-profit organizations will be provided to finance the construction, refurbishing, and servicing of individually-owned household water well systems in rural areas for low or moderate income individuals by providing resources to community based organizations to help families with severe drinking water problems. There are provisions to train rural firefighters and emergency personnel to assist small communities in Maine with homeland security issues, to support the rural business investment program, and $80 million for loan guarantees to provide local TV signals to rural areas. In regard to the Rural Empowerment Zones, Rural Enterprise Communities, and Champion Communities for Direct and Guaranteed Loans for Essential Community facilities, the city of Lewiston, ME, will now be eligible to take advantage of the benefits of Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loan Programs. Lewiston was one of only two communities nationwide specifically named in the Farm Bill Conference Report. For agricultural research, the conference report expands the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Foods Systems, important to the University of Maine as a real new source of research and development funding. The University has competed successfully for these grants in the past and currently has a $2 million IFAFS grant for looking at small integrated farm systems, along with being cooperators of several other IFAFS grants around the country. For the promotion of Maine value-added agricultural products around the world, the Market Access Program will be increased to $200 million annually by 2006, which is up from the current funding of $90 million. The MAP has been invaluable in helping to advertise the quality of our Maine potatoes and wild blueberries, helping growers to market their products abroad. Another $20 million is provided to help growers of fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops combat trade barriers. In addition, $200 million is provided to purchase agriculture products for the School Lunch Program, and products listed as eligible for the program are potatoes, blueberries, and cranberries, all grown in the State. Funding for 15 underserved States, of which Maine is one, is doubled, now set at $20 million annually for fiscal years 2003-2007 for marketing assistance, organic farming, pesticide reduction projects, and conservation assistance to help farmers sustain their working lands. Somewhat overlooked in the conference report is a newly created title that was included in the Senate-passed bill for energy efficiency and conservation, providing $450 million for research on bio-based fuels, a Federal biofuels purchasing program and efficiency measures that can make renewable energy the cash crop for the 21st Century. To help decrease the country's reliance on foreign oil imports, a competitive grant program will support development of biorefineries for conversion of biomass into fuels, chemicals and electricity. A biodiesel fuel education program will be funded at $1 million a year. The conference report will also establish a competitive grants program for energy audits and renewable energy development assessments for farmers and rural small businesses. In addition, $23 million a year from 2003 to 2007 is provided for a loan, loan-guarantee and grant program to help farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements. Also authorized is the continuation of the Commodity Credit Corporation bioenergy program and includes animal byproducts and fat, oils and greases as eligible commodities. A competitive grant program is established to support development of biorefineries for conversion of biomass into fuels, chemicals and electricity. A biodiesel fuel education program would be funded at $1 million a year. Of great interest to many small forest landowners in Maine is a provision in the conference report's forestry title for $100 million in obligated funds for the Forest Lands Enhancement Program, which will provide financial and technical assistance to small, private, non- industrial forest landowners for a variety of good management practices. The conference report also includes critical increases and updates to the nutritional safety net for America's families. The food stamp program fulfills an important need for millions of people nationwide and, thanks to the $6.3 billion in new dollars over the next 10 years for this program that is included in the conference report, countless additional needy families in Maine will be served by this program. I am certain that I am not alone when I hear complaints from my State about the administrative difficulties and barriers inherent in Federal programs, and the food stamp program is certainly one that has been in need of simplification. The conference report allows States to simplify and reduce their reporting requirements, and allows States to use a common definition of what counts as income similar to other public assistance programs, and are two essential components for streamlining the administrative burden associated with these benefits. Through the last farm bill established in 1996, which is better known as the Freedom to Farm Act, Congress tried to establish a new system of price and income supports for commodities that would lead to a shift toward a more market-oriented agricultural policy by gradually reducing financial support. Unfortunately, we had no crystal ball to tell us that export markets and farm prices would decline. This precipitous situation had Congress enacting four different supplemental measures from 1998 through 2001 that provided an additional $23 billion in non- disaster related farm income commodity assistance. We simply are not being fiscally responsible by continuing to do commodity farm bills on an ad hoc basis, and the conference report will hopefully prevent the need for ad hoc non-disaster supplementals in the future. For the 2002 farm bill, I strongly supported the amendment that passed in the Senate farm bill that capped farmers' payment limitations on commodity crops at $275,000 over the House version that had payments capped at $550,000, and I am not pleased that the limitation was raised in conference to $360,000 and the language was weakened on eligibility. I do not represent a State that raises an appreciable amount of commodity crops, so I cannot speak to the funding importance for those in the heartland of the Nation and in the South, but I do know what is important for my State and everywhere I look in this Farm Bill Conference Report in the non-commodity titles, I see funding provisions that will bring opportunities to every corner of the State of Maine. Specifically, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Maine Potato Board be printed in the Record, that expresses my feelings well about how important the increased funding for conservation, rural development, and the Market Access Program are to Maine. Part of what Don Flannery, executive director said was `` . . there are concerns that we all have with the bill but we also believe there are many direct benefits to Maine potato growers and Maine agriculture.'' On balance, I would be remiss to the agricultural and conservation communities in Maine to dismiss this bill or to dismiss President Bush's commitment to U.S. agriculture to sign the 2002 farm bill into law. I am casting a yes vote for the rural communities and for the farmers of Maine who are the backbone of the State's economy.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I am delighted to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in discussing the importance of the broadband tax credit legislation. We have worked on this bill since mid-2000, and we need to get it passed this year. I am particularly pleased to have worked with Senator Rockefeller on this issue. He and I go way back on technology matters. We worked side by side to ensure that all our classrooms and public libraries are connected to the Internet and modern technology through the E-rate, and this successful program is beginning its fifth year of funding. Just as the E-rate continues to ensure that our Nation's schools and libraries are not divided between technological haves and have nots, we must ensure that all of our Nation's homes and businesses--in both rural and urban areas--have access to broadband services. Because although dial-up services are good for sending e-mail, sharing short documents, and browsing the web slowly, you need broadband services if you need to receive information quickly or send an item that is data- intensive, such as photographs, graphics, or lengthy documents. While broadband is already being deployed in rural States, such as mine, I believe it is imperative that we seek to accelerate the rate of this deployment. Because where are the homes and small businesses without broadband service? That's easy--in rural and low-income areas. And that is what this bill is designed to cover: the rural and low- income areas where broadband generally is not already available. Furthermore, it is designed to help us move to the next generation of broadband that some countries are already rolling out. The bottom line is that there are times when it makes sense to help the market deploy technology more quickly and this is one of those times. Why? Because the Government can play an important role in ensuring that all our citizens have access to basic infrastructure, just as it ensured universal access to telephone service in the 1930s. I will not repeat what my other colleagues have said about the United States falling behind in broadband infrastructure, but it is a fact and it is something we cannot allow. We must engage on this issue and we must do it now. As the lead Republican cosponsor of the legislation, I urge the passage of the broadband tax credit legislation as one way to address this matter, and believe it should be done this year. While there are a number of other ideas on the table concerning broadband deployment, this is one that is ready to go, and we should not wait any longer. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support moving this incentive as part of the next available tax package moving through the Congress.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank my esteemed colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, and those Senators who have taken part in this colloquy today as it shows an unprecedented effort to forge a bipartisan agreement to address the various issues relating to climate change and what our domestic approach and strategy should be for short and long term goals for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations through U.S. actions. In addition, it will help the nation continue its efforts to carry out the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The major objective of the Conference is for the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic, or manmade, interference with the climate system. I am pleased that Title X calls for an Office of National Climate Change Policy in the White House and hope this direction is pursued as last year I expressed my concerns to the Administration that the national energy policy being developed in the White House should not be developed independently of our U.S. climate change policy. These policies should be seamlessly coordinated across a number of our federal agencies through a broad range of research activities and actions that begin to reduce our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions in an environmentally and technologically sound and economically feasible manner. I am particularly pleased that Title XIII calls for an ocean and coastal observing system that will give us real time observations to help those of us on the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Atmosphere, Oceans and Fisheries greater understand, assess and respond to both human-induced and natural processes of climate change and support efforts to restore the health of and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and living resources. Activities will also include research on abrupt climate change urged in December 2001 by the National Academies for NOAA research to identify the likelihood and potential impact of a sudden change in climate in response to global warming. I look forward to working with my colleague sand the White House on this issue of great importance not only to me, but to the Nation, to the international community, and to those generations to follow.