Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2001. I have worked with Senators Kyl and Feinstein, first on their Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001, and subsequently with them and Senators Kennedy and Brownback on this legislation. These sponsors have worked feverishly to bring this bipartisan bill to fruition and I have very much appreciated the opportunity to work with them in assembling a strong and meaningful package to help secure our homeland. The bottom line is, at this extraordinary time, in the wake of horrific attacks from without against innocent lives within our borders, we must take every conceivable step with regard to those variables we can control in securing our Nation. How can we do anything less when it has become so abundantly and tragically apparent that admittance into this country cannot and must not be the ``X-Factor'' in protecting our homeland? Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege that has clearly been violated by perpetrators of evil who were well aware of inherent weaknesses in the system. Just look at the story of Mohamed Atta, coming into Miami, he told the INS that he was returning to the U.S. to continue flight training, despite the fact that he presented them with a tourist visa, not the student required visa for his purposes, and they let him in. INS has since said that Atta had filed months earlier to change his status from tourist to student so they let him in, despite long-standing policy that once you leave the country, you're considered to have abandoned your change of status request. What this bill is about is stopping dangerous aliens from entering our country at their point-of-origin and their point of entry by giving those Federal agencies charged with that responsibility the tools necessary to do the job. Now, some say the tools we need are better technologies, some say better information, some say better coordination. The beauty of this bill is that it stands on all three legs, because I can tell you if there is one thing I learned from my experience in working on these issues on the House Foreign Affairs International Operations Subcommittee is that we are only going to get to the root of the problem with a comprehensive approach. This was clear from the aftermath of our investigation of the comings and goings of the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the radical Egyptian cleric Sheikh Rahman. We found that the Sheikh had entered and exited the country five times totally unimpeded, even after the State Department formally revoked his visa and even after the INS granted him permanent resident status. In fact, in March of 1992, the INS rescinded that status which was granted in Newark, NJ about a year before. But then, unbelievably, the Sheikh requested asylum in a hearing before an immigration judge in the very same city, got a second hearing, and continued to remain in the country even after the bombing, with the Justice Department rejecting holding Rahman in custody pending the outcome of deportation proceedings and the asylum application, stating that ``in the absence of concrete evidence that Rahman is participating in or involved in planning acts of terrorism, the assumption of that burden, upon the U.S. government, is considered unwarranted.'' To address the trail of errors, I introduced legislation to modernize the State Department's antiquated Microfiche lookout system, but as we have painfully learned in the interim, such a system is only as good as the information it can access. That is why we fought tooth and nail to require information sharing between the FBI and the State Department. In 1994 Congress passed my legislation to give State Department officials access to FBI criminal records for every visa application, whether for immigrant or non-immigrant purposes. Addressing non- immigrants who enter the U.S. using student visas was particularly important, as was demonstrated by the inexplicable errors by INS, and in the case of the bomber who entered the U.S. on a student visa before dropping out of school, remaining undetected for two years on the expired visa, and driving a truckload of explosives into the World Trade Center in 1993. Unfortunately a revised provision limited this access only for purposes of immigrant visas, dropping my requirement for the non-immigrant visas initially used by all 19 of the September 11 hijackers. So I am pleased that the USA PATRIOT counterterrorism bill we passed last year does require information sharing between the State Department and the FBI, but we can and must do more, we must also require information sharing among all agencies like the CIA, DEA, INS, and Customs. And that is what this bill does, along with my measure that is included to establish ``Terrorist Lookout Committees'' at every embassy, which are required to meet on a monthly basis and report on their knowledge of anyone who should be excluded from the U.S. I am also pleased to have worked further with Senators Kennedy and Kyl to include in the managers' amendment a provision increasing accountability by requiring the Terrorist Lookout Committees to report to the Secretary of State after each monthly meeting and with reports from the Secretary to Congress on a quarterly basis. We ought to ensure that the person standing in front of the INS agent at the border is the same person who applied for that visa. It does no good to do every background check in the world overseas, only to have someone else actually show up at our doorstep. The fact is, we have the so-called ``biometric technology'' available to close this gap, and I am pleased that my measure requiring the use of this biometric technology such as fingerprinting for visa applicants both abroad and at the border has been included, although not exclusively limited to fingerprinting. The information collected by the consular officer issuing the visa must then be electronically transmitted to the INS so that the file is available to immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry before the alien's arrival. In addition to these protections, the bill provides funding for an increase in border patrol personnel and for training of those agents and other agency staffs at U.S. ports of entry and in our consular offices to improve the ability of these officers, our first line of defense on our borders, to more easily identify and intercept would-be terrorists. As the President has said, ``We're going to start asking a lot of questions that heretofore have not been asked.'' By giving the Director of Homeland Security the responsibility of developing a centralized ``lookout'' database for all of this information, along with instituting tighter application and screening procedures and increased oversight for student visas, we will close the loopholes and help bring all our Nation's resources to bear in securing our Nation. This is a crucial bill in our war on terrorism and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Worker Investment and Retirement Education, or WIRE, Act of 2002. The WIRE Act seeks to empower workers by giving them control over all of the assets in their retirement accounts and ensures that, in addition to having the ability to take command of assets, they have the information they need to make sound and informed choices. While the need for pension reform was highlighted by the recent collapse and bankruptcy of Enron, a review of pension regulations is critical for all of the approximate 48 million workers nationwide who participate in a defined contribution retirement plan. And, as Congress sets out to review existing pension laws, we must recognize that there has been a significant shift in Americans' retirement savings vehicles over the past several years. In fact, use of what we think of as the typical ``pension'', or defined benefit plan, has fallen from one-third of all plans to one-tenth in 20 years. And, the actual number of defined benefit plans has fallen each year since 1986. Although they still account for almost 45 percent of all employer-sponsored retirement plan participants, that figure was much higher, at 74 percent, just 20 years ago. This shift away from defined benefit plans has resulted in the explosion of participation in defined contribution plans, giving individuals the opportunity to make investment decisions according to their own needs and plans for the future. However, with this ability comes added responsibility and, depending on the investment choice, greater risk. And it is this risk that was so clearly personified by the experience of Enron employees. On Enron's 40,000 employees, almost 21,000 were participating in the Enron Savings Plan, the 401(k) plan. These loyal employees heavily invested in Enron, only to be hit by the one-two punch of losing their jobs and losing their life savings, with the retirement savings losses amounting to over $1 billion. It is their experience that has led us to write the legislation we are introducing today. While it is critical that the Congress ensure that such a massive loss of retirement savings never reoccurs, it is also vital that we consider reforms that empower employees, and do not discourage employers from contributing to their employees' retirement plans. As we set out to draft the WIRE Act we sought first and foremost to do no harm to the private pension system. The WIRE Act, in seeking to increase employees' access to information and ensure that employees have the knowledge necessary to make sound investment decisions, requires that individual workers receive annual statements regarding the assets in their accounts. In addition, our legislation directs the Departments of Labor and the Treasury to produce annually a document for all employees giving them basic guidelines for retirement investing. This assures that employees receive fundamental investment information from an independent authority. Additionally, the WIRE Act incorporates the language of the Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001, clarifying the fiduciary rules for plan sponsors who offer access to investment advice by providing companies with a safe harbor from liability if they provide qualified, independent investment advice for their workers. Just as it is critical that we provide access to the information necessary to make informed decisions, it is essential that we increase employees' diversification rights without inhibiting an employee's ability to invest in their company. And, certainly a review of the investment decisions of employees across the country tells us that the decision of Enron employees to invest their retirements heavily in Enron stock is not unique. In fact, the employees of many of America's leading companies, our top brand names, have chosen similarly to invest more than half of their retirement plan assets in company stock, Procter and Gamble, 94.7 percent, Sherwin-Williams, 91.6 percent, Pfizer, 88.5 percent, McDonald's, 74.3 percent, the list goes on and on. And so where does that leave us? How does Congress balance an individual's right to make their own investment decisions, with trying to make sure that no other class of employees suffer as significant a loss as that experienced by Enron employees? The WIRE Act proposes that the answer to these questions lies in the ability of employees to access and diversify company stock. Therefore, we create specialized diversification rights that are dependent upon the manner in which the stock was added to the employee's account. For instance, for voluntary purchases of company stock by employees, workers should be able to diversify those shares at any time, after all, it is their own money. For employer-matching contributions made in the form of company stock, half of those shares can be diversified after three years of service, and one hundred percent can be diversified after five years of service. Importantly, as our intent is to first do no harm to the current employer-sponsored pension system, the WIRE Act attempts to mitigate any potential loss of tax incentives enjoyed by employers for making contributions in the form of company stock when that stock is diversified. We do this by allowing employers to continue to deduct the dividends that would have been paid on employee held company stock for the remainder of that calendar year and for two additional years. This provision, which is unique to the WIRE Act, would ensure that the diversification rights given to employees does not have the unfortunate effect of reducing employer contributions to pension plans--which would be harmful to both the employees and the employers. The bill we introduce today aims to do nothing to limit personal choice, which is the cornerstone of American beliefs, but instead empower investors with the knowledge and ability to make some of the most fundamental financial decision a person can make. However, as we begin to consider how best to empower and educate employees, it is just as essential that we do not create any disincentives for employers to stop participating in their employees' retirement security. Employers play a critical role in the retirement planning of their employees and it is critical that we encourage this role to continue. Retirement is part of the American dream, and to that end we must do whatever we can to ensure that this dream is achievable for everyone. I look forward to working with the other members of the Finance Committee, and the Senate, to consider addressing the need for pension reform.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kerry in introducing the Worker Investment and Retirement Education, or WIRE, Act of 2002. The WIRE Act seeks to empower workers by giving them control over all of the assets in their retirement accounts and ensures that, in addition to having the ability to take command of assets, they have the information they need to make sound and informed choices. While the need for pension reform was highlighted by the recent collapse and bankruptcy of Enron, a review of pension regulations is critical for all of the approximate 48 million workers nationwide who participate in a defined contribution retirement plan. And, as Congress sets out to review existing pension laws, we must recognize that there has been a significant shift in Americans' retirement savings vehicles over the past several years. In fact, use of what we think of as the typical ``pension'', or defined benefit plan, has fallen from one-third of all plans to one-tenth in 20 years. And, the actual number of defined benefit plans has fallen each year since 1986. Although they still account for almost 45 percent of all employer-sponsored retirement plan participants, that figure was much higher, at 74 percent, just 20 years ago. This shift away from defined benefit plans has resulted in the explosion of participation in defined contribution plans, giving individuals the opportunity to make investment decisions according to their own needs and plans for the future. However, with this ability comes added responsibility and, depending on the investment choice, greater risk. And it is this risk that was so clearly personified by the experience of Enron employees. On Enron's 40,000 employees, almost 21,000 were participating in the Enron Savings Plan, the 401(k) plan. These loyal employees heavily invested in Enron, only to be hit by the one-two punch of losing their jobs and losing their life savings, with the retirement savings losses amounting to over $1 billion. It is their experience that has led us to write the legislation we are introducing today. While it is critical that the Congress ensure that such a massive loss of retirement savings never reoccurs, it is also vital that we consider reforms that empower employees, and do not discourage employers from contributing to their employees' retirement plans. As we set out to draft the WIRE Act we sought first and foremost to do no harm to the private pension system. The WIRE Act, in seeking to increase employees' access to information and ensure that employees have the knowledge necessary to make sound investment decisions, requires that individual workers receive annual statements regarding the assets in their accounts. In addition, our legislation directs the Departments of Labor and the Treasury to produce annually a document for all employees giving them basic guidelines for retirement investing. This assures that employees receive fundamental investment information from an independent authority. Additionally, the WIRE Act incorporates the language of the Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001, clarifying the fiduciary rules for plan sponsors who offer access to investment advice by providing companies with a safe harbor from liability if they provide qualified, independent investment advice for their workers. Just as it is critical that we provide access to the information necessary to make informed decisions, it is essential that we increase employees' diversification rights without inhibiting an employee's ability to invest in their company. And, certainly a review of the investment decisions of employees across the country tells us that the decision of Enron employees to invest their retirements heavily in Enron stock is not unique. In fact, the employees of many of America's leading companies, our top brand names, have chosen similarly to invest more than half of their retirement plan assets in company stock, Procter and Gamble, 94.7 percent, Sherwin-Williams, 91.6 percent, Pfizer, 88.5 percent, McDonald's, 74.3 percent, the list goes on and on. And so where does that leave us? How does Congress balance an individual's right to make their own investment decisions, with trying to make sure that no other class of employees suffer as significant a loss as that experienced by Enron employees? The WIRE Act proposes that the answer to these questions lies in the ability of employees to access and diversify company stock. Therefore, we create specialized diversification rights that are dependent upon the manner in which the stock was added to the employee's account. For instance, for voluntary purchases of company stock by employees, workers should be able to diversify those shares at any time, after all, it is their own money. For employer-matching contributions made in the form of company stock, half of those shares can be diversified after three years of service, and one hundred percent can be diversified after five years of service. Importantly, as our intent is to first do no harm to the current employer-sponsored pension system, the WIRE Act attempts to mitigate any potential loss of tax incentives enjoyed by employers for making contributions in the form of company stock when that stock is diversified. We do this by allowing employers to continue to deduct the dividends that would have been paid on employee held company stock for the remainder of that calendar year and for two additional years. This provision, which is unique to the WIRE Act, would ensure that the diversification rights given to employees does not have the unfortunate effect of reducing employer contributions to pension plans--which would be harmful to both the employees and the employers. The bill we introduce today aims to do nothing to limit personal choice, which is the cornerstone of American beliefs, but instead empower investors with the knowledge and ability to make some of the most fundamental financial decision a person can make. However, as we begin to consider how best to empower and educate employees, it is just as essential that we do not create any disincentives for employers to stop participating in their employees' retirement security. Employers play a critical role in the retirement planning of their employees and it is critical that we encourage this role to continue. Retirement is part of the American dream, and to that end we must do whatever we can to ensure that this dream is achievable for everyone. I look forward to working with the other members of the Finance Committee, and the Senate, to consider addressing the need for pension reform.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, in introducing the ``Access to High Quality Child Care Act of 2002.'' This legislation seeks to build upon Congress' efforts in 1996 to reform the Nation's welfare system and with it, overhaul the Nation's largest child care assistance program, the Child Care Development Block Grant. One of the most important tasks before Congress this session is the reauthorization of two critical public assistance laws, the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, and the Child Care Development Block Grant. Together, these two programs, which are inextricably linked, comprise the backbone for our Nation's support infrastructure for working families. The 1996 welfare law reformed the entire nature of the welfare system, ending welfare as a way of life and making it instead a temporary program, providing a hand up instead of a hand out to families making the transition from welfare to work. The Child Care Development Block Grant, working with the welfare law, provides more than $4.8 billion for child care in 2002, giving assistance to those families that are in transition as well as those who have already successfully made it out of the welfare system, and helping them stay out of the welfare system by helping them meet the high cost of child care. The result is that since 1996, with more parents working, more children than ever before are receiving child care subsidy assistance. The key to the successful welfare reform, as witnessed by the 52 percent decline in welfare caseloads since 1996, is the system of work supports that provides assistance to working parents to help them make ends meet while in low paying jobs, and sustain the family's successful transition from welfare to self sufficiency. And perhaps the most critical of all work supports is child care. Without access to quality child care, a parent is left with two choices, to leave their child in a unsafe, and often unsupervised situation, or to not work at all. Frankly, neither option is acceptable. This is the underlying philosophy behind the legislation we introduce today: to ensure that working parents have access to affordable, high quality child care. From the onset, our goal has been to reauthorize the Child Care Development Block Grant to ensure the working parents of America can continue their jobs with the peace of mind that their children are in a safe and quality child care situation, whether it is at a child care center, a relative's home, or in their own home. We do so by increasing the amount of funding set aside to raise the quality of care, giving states the ability to improve strengthen their child care workforce. States will have the option to choose how they will do so, but options include partnering with community colleges and Resource and Referral agencies to provide training in early childhood development to the workforce, or by simply increasing child care worker's wages. Astonishingly, the national average salary for a child care worker is between $15,000 and $16,000, and usually with few benefits. This legislation would give states even greater flexibility to decide how to improve quality using even greater resources. Additionally, our legislation simplifies and streamlines the use of federal welfare dollars for child care, whether it be spent directly on child care or whether it is transferred to the Child Care Development Block Grant, while holding these expenditures to the same health and safety standards as those under the CCDBG. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has the jurisdiction over the welfare reauthorization, fixing what's wrong with the rules regarding the use of federal welfare funding for child care is a high priority of mine as welfare works its way through Committee consideration. Approximately 14 million children under the age of six are regularly in child care, corresponding with the fact that 65 percent of mothers with children under age six are in the workforce. Considering that the goal of welfare reform is to move people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls, offering help with the cost of child care is one sure way to ensure that parents can work. Child care is expensive and often difficult to find. In some states, child care costs as much as four years in a public college. And that's even before considering the additional cost of caring for infants, or for odd hour care for those working nights or weekends, or care for children with special needs. And the fact is, we know child care pays off in encouraging more parents on welfare to find and keep a job. States have devoted significant funding to child care assistance, and have redirected the bulk of unspent federal welfare dollars under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, TANF, and state Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to child care assistance. In 2000 alone, states transferred $2.4 billion in TANF dollars to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and spent an additional $1.5 billion in direct TANF dollars for child care. Why? Because they realize that child care assistance keeps parents working and that is the key to self sufficiency. However, since parents who are making the transition from welfare to work typically hold minimum wage jobs, those workers' ability to place their children in quality child care often stretches their families' budget to the limit. And while these families may no longer be in need of, or eligible for, cash assistance, without child care assistance, they may be forced back on the welfare rolls. The fact of the matter is, quality affordable child care remains difficult to afford for families nationwide. This reality was made clear last month, when a young woman from Maine, Sheila Merkinson, testified before Senator Dodd's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, that the cost of her son's child care absorbs 48 percent of her weekly income, leaving her to provide for her family with only half of her $18,000 a year earnings. Sadly, Sheila's situation is not unique. Our legislation will help Sheila, and thousands like her, by improving the current child care delivery system, and increases the funding for the Child Care Development Fund to meet the needs established by the welfare work requirements. This link not only makes sense, it also is critical, responsible and essential for the future of our nation's children and families.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd, in introducing the ``Access to High Quality Child Care Act of 2002.'' This legislation seeks to build upon Congress' efforts in 1996 to reform the Nation's welfare system and with it, overhaul the Nation's largest child care assistance program, the Child Care Development Block Grant. One of the most important tasks before Congress this session is the reauthorization of two critical public assistance laws, the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, and the Child Care Development Block Grant. Together, these two programs, which are inextricably linked, comprise the backbone for our Nation's support infrastructure for working families. The 1996 welfare law reformed the entire nature of the welfare system, ending welfare as a way of life and making it instead a temporary program, providing a hand up instead of a hand out to families making the transition from welfare to work. The Child Care Development Block Grant, working with the welfare law, provides more than $4.8 billion for child care in 2002, giving assistance to those families that are in transition as well as those who have already successfully made it out of the welfare system, and helping them stay out of the welfare system by helping them meet the high cost of child care. The result is that since 1996, with more parents working, more children than ever before are receiving child care subsidy assistance. The key to the successful welfare reform, as witnessed by the 52 percent decline in welfare caseloads since 1996, is the system of work supports that provides assistance to working parents to help them make ends meet while in low paying jobs, and sustain the family's successful transition from welfare to self sufficiency. And perhaps the most critical of all work supports is child care. Without access to quality child care, a parent is left with two choices, to leave their child in a unsafe, and often unsupervised situation, or to not work at all. Frankly, neither option is acceptable. This is the underlying philosophy behind the legislation we introduce today: to ensure that working parents have access to affordable, high quality child care. From the onset, our goal has been to reauthorize the Child Care Development Block Grant to ensure the working parents of America can continue their jobs with the peace of mind that their children are in a safe and quality child care situation, whether it is at a child care center, a relative's home, or in their own home. We do so by increasing the amount of funding set aside to raise the quality of care, giving states the ability to improve strengthen their child care workforce. States will have the option to choose how they will do so, but options include partnering with community colleges and Resource and Referral agencies to provide training in early childhood development to the workforce, or by simply increasing child care worker's wages. Astonishingly, the national average salary for a child care worker is between $15,000 and $16,000, and usually with few benefits. This legislation would give states even greater flexibility to decide how to improve quality using even greater resources. Additionally, our legislation simplifies and streamlines the use of federal welfare dollars for child care, whether it be spent directly on child care or whether it is transferred to the Child Care Development Block Grant, while holding these expenditures to the same health and safety standards as those under the CCDBG. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has the jurisdiction over the welfare reauthorization, fixing what's wrong with the rules regarding the use of federal welfare funding for child care is a high priority of mine as welfare works its way through Committee consideration. Approximately 14 million children under the age of six are regularly in child care, corresponding with the fact that 65 percent of mothers with children under age six are in the workforce. Considering that the goal of welfare reform is to move people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls, offering help with the cost of child care is one sure way to ensure that parents can work. Child care is expensive and often difficult to find. In some states, child care costs as much as four years in a public college. And that's even before considering the additional cost of caring for infants, or for odd hour care for those working nights or weekends, or care for children with special needs. And the fact is, we know child care pays off in encouraging more parents on welfare to find and keep a job. States have devoted significant funding to child care assistance, and have redirected the bulk of unspent federal welfare dollars under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, TANF, and state Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to child care assistance. In 2000 alone, states transferred $2.4 billion in TANF dollars to the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and spent an additional $1.5 billion in direct TANF dollars for child care. Why? Because they realize that child care assistance keeps parents working and that is the key to self sufficiency. However, since parents who are making the transition from welfare to work typically hold minimum wage jobs, those workers' ability to place their children in quality child care often stretches their families' budget to the limit. And while these families may no longer be in need of, or eligible for, cash assistance, without child care assistance, they may be forced back on the welfare rolls. The fact of the matter is, quality affordable child care remains difficult to afford for families nationwide. This reality was made clear last month, when a young woman from Maine, Sheila Merkinson, testified before Senator Dodd's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee, that the cost of her son's child care absorbs 48 percent of her weekly income, leaving her to provide for her family with only half of her $18,000 a year earnings. Sadly, Sheila's situation is not unique. Our legislation will help Sheila, and thousands like her, by improving the current child care delivery system, and increases the funding for the Child Care Development Fund to meet the needs established by the welfare work requirements. This link not only makes sense, it also is critical, responsible and essential for the future of our nation's children and families.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this landmark campaign finance reform bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is before us today. That bill, the so-called ``Shays-Meehan'' bill, of course is very close to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation that we passed in this body last April. As I have said before, this bill reminds me of that old Beatles song, ``The Long and Winding Road.'' Because, for certain, the road to this day has been marked by long stretches of nothingness, interrupted periodically along the way by dangerous curves, rock-slides, pot holes, jersey barriers, you name it. And while there were times it looked as though we might fly off the cliff, never to be seen again--or that we might run head-long into one of the myriad procedural roadblocks placed before us here we are, finally at the doorstep of real and meaningful campaign finance reform for the first time in a quarter century. Without question, we never would have arrived here safely if not for the extraordinary skills of the two men at the wheel--Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold. Their names have become synonymous with campaign reform, and with good reason. No one has devoted more of themselves to this cause. No one has poured more effort, energy and innovation into bringing about necessary changes in the way in which we finance campaigns in this country. We say it all the time in this body, but these two truly have worked tirelessly for the success of this legislation. And I can tell you I've been privileged to work with them in trying to forge a bill that will not only address a huge portion of the problem we face, but also a bill that can pass the Congress and be signed into law. In that light, I also want to recognize and commend Representatives Shays and Meehan, whose fight in the House reminds me of the story of Hercules' battle with the Hydra--a serpent with nine-heads, one of which was immortal. But Hercules won out by burying that last, immortal head just as Congressmen Shays and Meehan won out over the multi- faceted offensive of procedural hurdles and killer amendments that was thrown at them. I congratulate them both. And before I go any further, I also thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, who has been steadfast and instrumental in helping to forge the compromise language in this bill that has now come to be known as ``Snowe-Jeffords.'' I can't tell you the countless hours and incredible effort he and his staff have put in to develop and hone this language in consultation with leading reformers and constitutional scholars, and I deeply appreciate his commitment to advancing the cause of campaign finance reform. Indeed, I have never been more optimistic that reform will become reality. The fact of the matter is, the House and Senate are now both on record in support of reform, having passed two bills that achieve the same objectives and goals. And so now the time is upon us. The time has arrived for us to lay aside procedural gymnastics and put away the arcane legislative amendment trees and pass this bill and send it to the President of the United States. Today, I want to speak to the pressing need for reform . . . the reasons why this bill fits the bill . . . and why I believe in both the effectiveness and constitutionality of what we are about to do. First, I do not think there can be any doubt that we have a system of financing campaigns in this country that is out of control. And it is out of control in a very literal sense because some critical loopholes have been exploited that takes an entire and ever-growing universe of money out from under the umbrella and enforcement mechanisms of federal election laws and into the realm of ``anything goes.'' Well, the ``if it feels good, do it'' approach to financing campaigns in America must come to an end, because it is making a mockery of our election laws. We've all heard by now the story of soft money, and what it represents money that is raised and spent outside the purview of federal election law, even though it unquestionably effects the outcome of Federal elections. That's the fundamental reason why it's time for soft money to go. Because it's no longer about building up the parties something I have absolutely no problem with whatsoever. It's about money that's being raised in unlimited amounts from unlimited sources to elect candidates for Federal office--something for which we already have well- established rules--rules that are being flouted on a grand and disturbing scale. This soft money must be incredibly effective in what it does, because every year the parties come more and more under its spell. Just ten years ago, during the Presidential election cycle of 1992, soft money accounted for just 17 percent of total receipts by the two major political parties. But in the last election cycle, that number skyrocketed to 40 percent. To put it another way, the $86.1 million in soft money raised by the two parties in 1992 increased by well over 500 percent in the 2000 elections. And just think about this--the total amount of soft money raised by both parties in the first half of this current election cycle--$160.1 million--is more than twice the $67.4 million raised in 1997, the first year of the most recent non-presidential cycle. Even more telling is the fact that the current numbers are almost 50 percent more than the $107.2 million raised in 1999--and that was during a Presidential election cycle, when fundraising is typically higher. Where will we be in 10 years, Mr. President? In 20 years? The amount of money is staggering. But just as bad is the complete lack of accountability assigned to it--even though it is being used to affect the outcome of Federal elections. No wonder there is a strong sense that campaigns in this country have spiraled out of control. There is a strong sense that elections are no longer in the hands of individual Americans. As the old saying goes, perception becomes nine tenths of reality. And the reality is, we have a system in need of an overhaul. That's why one of the most critical components of this bill bans soft money for the national parties. But to do that alone is simply not enough. We can't just shut off the flow of soft money to parties and call it a day. We also must close off the use of corporate and union treasury money used to fund ads influencing Federal elections. That's the only way we can claim to have enacted truly balanced and fair reform. As far back as 1997, I worked to address this thorny issue--how do we ensure freedom of speech while also ensuring the integrity of our election laws? And what I eventually developed in partnership with Senator Jeffords and noted constitutional scholars is an easily understandable, narrowly drawn, constitutional method of applying disclosure and restrictions on the sources of funding for electioneering ads masquerading as so-called ``issue ads.'' What we are talking about are broadcast advertisements that are influencing our Federal elections and, in virtually every instance, are designed to influence our Federal elections. Every focus group and every study group that has been conducted over the last few years proves this, and I'll detail those studies later. And yet, no disclosure is required and there are none of the funding source prohibitions that for decades have been placed on other forms of campaigning. Why is this so? Because they don't contain the so-called ``magic words'' like ``vote for candidate x'' or ``vote against candidate x'' that make a communication what is called ``express advocacy,'' and therefore, subject to Federal law requiring disclosure and requiring that the ad be paid for with hard money. These ads must be extraordinarily effective, because their use has exploded within the last decade. According to a 2001 report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which has been studying this trend almost since its inception in the 1996 election cycle, in the past three cycles we have seen spending on issue ads go from about $150 million in 1996, to about $340 million in 1998, to over $500 million in 2000. One hundred million of that was spent in the last 2 months alone. And there is not one dime of disclosure required on any of it. It's time we closed this loophole. It's time to remove the cloak of anonymity. Otherwise, we are saying that it really doesn't matter to the election process. That we should not know who is behind these types of commercials that are run 60 days before the election, 30 days before a primary, whose donors contribute more than $1,000. We ought to have disclosure on these ads where there currently is no disclosure. And that's what the Snowe-Jeffords provision in this bill does, in simple, straightforward and unambiguous terms. Here's how it works. First, it requires disclosure on individuals and groups running broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election that mention the name of a Federal candidate and are distributed from a broadcaster or cable or satellite service and is received by 50,000 or more persons in State or district where Senate/ House election occurs. And the disclosure threshold is high $1,000 which incidentally is five times the contribution amounts candidates are required to disclose. And second, it prohibits the use of union or corporate treasury money to pay for these ads, in keeping with longstanding provisions of law. Corporations have been banned from direct involvement in campaigns since the Tillman Act of 1907. Unions were first addressed in the Smith-Connally Act of 1943 and the prohibition was finally made permanent in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act. And these laws have stood because the Court has recognized--as recently as 1990 as this quote from Justice Marshall in the Austin versus Michigan Chamber of Commerce decision shows--``the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form, and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas.'' Now, the Snowe-Jeffords provision has been around for a while, and during that time I have heard some pretty outrageous and flat-out false statements made about it, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on what it does and doesn't do. Indeed, it was said on the floor last March, in defense of an amendment to remove the Snowe-Jeffords language from the bill an attempt that failed by a vote of 28-72 I might add that: American citizens would be prohibited from discussing on television or radio a candidate's voting records and positions within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary . . . the 'political speech police' would be saying that you cannot mention a candidate's name; you cannot criticize that candidate by name . . . if you are part of a citizens group wanting to enter the political debate and engage in meaningful discourse, using the most wide-sweeping medium for reaching the people which is TV, under this provision you cannot do that. You simply cannot enter the debate using television or radio as a mode of communication. Mr. President, this is a gross mis-characterization of Snowe- Jeffords. Individuals are free to run ads saying whatever they want whenever they want and unions, corporations and non-profit 501(c)4 groups can simply form political action committees to which individuals voluntarily contribute up to the amount allowed by law to run ads mentioning a candidate near an election. So it absolutely can be done. I have also heard it said that the result of this provision would be essentially be little or no political speech during the 60 day period before an election. But that simply isn't true. Again, so-called issue ads run on television and radio only, 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a Federal election, that mention a Federal candidate's name, and are seen by the candidate's electorate, would be subject to disclosure--and could not be funded by corporate or union general treasury funds or union dues. And this only applies if you run more than $10,000 of these kind of ads during a calendar year. So we will never effect small groups. The most important, bottom line components to this legislation are disclosure, and a requirement that these so-called issue ads that are really campaign ads be funded from voluntary, individual contributions just like any other campaign ad. Let me now give you a quick example of exactly what kinds of ads we would cover, and what ads wouldn't be touched at all. First, the electioneering ad--it doesn't specifically say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' so-and-so--something that would automatically bring it under current law. ``We try to teach our children that honesty matters. Unfortunately, though, Candidate X just doesn't get it. Candidate X urged her employer to buy politicians and judges with money and jobs for their relatives. Candidate X advocates corruption . . . call Candidate X. Tell her government shouldn't be for sale. Tell her we're better than that. Tell her honesty does matter.'' Under current law, because this ad doesn't use the so-called magic words, there is no disclosure required on these ads and there are no source prohibitions whatsoever. And we're told by our opponents that we're just supposed to throw up our hands and say, ``Oh well, we all know what these ads are doing, but there's not a thing we can do about it.'' Now, here is a real issue ad that wouldn't be covered at all by Snowe-Jeffords in any way, shape or form. It says: (Woman): ``We can't pay these bills, John.'' (Man): ``Prices are as low as when my dad started farming.'' (Woman): ``It's bad, alright.'' (Man): ``Farmers are suffering because foreign markets have been closed to us and our own government won't even help.'' (Woman): ``I hear the Thompsons are going to have to quit farming after four generations.'' (Man): ``I can't even bear to think about it.'' (Announcer): Tell Congress we need a sound, strong trade policy. Call 202-225-3121. And there are graphics on the screen that show the phone number, that direct viewers to tell Congress that we need to pass initiatives like ``IMF Funding'' and ``Sanctions Reform'', and they give the number for the Capitol switchboard. Again, this is a pure issue ad that we wouldn't touch. Now, some of our opponents have said that we are simply opening the floodgates in allowing soft money to now be channeled through these independent groups for electioneering purposes. To that, I would say that this bill would prohibit members from directing money to these groups to affect elections, so that would cut out an entire avenue of solicitation for funds, not to mention any real or perceived ``quid pro quo''. Furthermore, I find it both interesting and remarkable that in many cases our opponents who are making this claim on the one hand are at the same time claiming that we're choking off free speech. That the provision ``restricts citizen speech'' by ``severely limiting the sources of money that can be used for such speech'', as FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece on March 20, 2001. So my question is, which is it? Is it opening the floodgates, or is it choking off speech? Because you can't have it both ways. Opponents have also referred to the NAACP versus Alabama Supreme Court case to say that our disclosure provisions are unconstitutional. And I want to take this opportunity to refute what is yet another misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is, NAACP was about the disclosure of an entire membership list of a black civil rights organization in Alabama in the 1950's. The law struck down in that case forced the NAACP in Alabama, an issue advocacy organization, to disclose all of its members or to leave the State. I hope no one would suggest that's equitable to today. The bottom line is, we only require disclosure of major donors. And there is no guaranteed right to anonymity when it comes to campaigning. In fact, the court has said time and again that disclosure is in the public interest because it gives the public details as to the nature and source of the information they are getting. The fact is, any group may be entitled to an exemption from electioneering disclosure laws if it can demonstrate a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure will subject it members to threats or reprisals. But the need for these kinds of limited exceptions don't make the general disclosure rules contained in Snowe- Jeffords unconstitutional. I want to reiterate to my colleagues that the language in this bill was carefully and narrowly crafted in consultation with noted constitutional scholars and reformers. In doing so, the provision was based on the precept that the Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional purposes, campaigning which make no mistake, these ads do--is different from other speech. It builds upon bedrock legal and constitutional principles, extending current regulation cautiously and only in the areas in which the first amendment is at its lowest threshold, such as disclosure and prohibitions on union and corporation spending. It also was crafted to keep with the spirit of the Supreme Court's requirements that any laws we pass that might have an impact on speech not be overly vague or substantially overly-broad. In fact, let me quote from a scholar's letter from the Brennan Center dated March 12, 2001, which was signed by 70 law professors and scholars from all over the country in support of the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in general and of this provision specifically. In the letter, they say, ``the Court did not declare that all legislatures were stuck with these magic words--in other words, the terms like ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' that denote whether or not an ad contains express advocacy, and therefore is currently subject to regulation--or words like them, for all time. To the contrary, Congress has the power to enact a statute that defines electioneering in a more nuanced manner, as long as its definition adequately addresses the vagueness and overbreadth concerns expressed by the Court.'' And the fact of the matter is, Mr. President, we do address those two concerns, and we do so very well. No wonder then that every living person to have served as ACLU President, ACLU Executive Director, ACLU Legal Director, or ACLU Legislative Director--with the exception of current leadership--has signed onto a letter supporting our approach. Every single one of them. Already I have established how our provision is not even remotely vague. As that Brennan Center scholars' letter says that was signed by 70 scholars, ``Because the test for prohibited electioneering is defined with great clarity, it satisfies the Supreme Court's vagueness concerns. Any sponsor will know, with absolute certainty, whether the ad depicts or names a candidate and how many days before an election it is being broadcast. There is little danger that a sponsor would mistakenly censor its own protected speech out of fear of prosecution under such a clear standard.'' As for the issue of overbreadth--that we'd be capturing all kinds of ads that aren't electioneering--well, the evidence belies those claims. Just consider how well this test works when compared to what's going on in real life. In the final 2 months of an election, 95 percent of the issue ads Annenberg studied in the top 75 media markets mentioned the names of candidates. They do it because they know what's effective. These people don't spend umpteen amounts of dollars on ads hoping that maybe they work. They know their message is clear. And they know that using the name of Federal candidates in their ads near the election is an effective way of influencing the election. That's why Snowe-Jeffords keys in on the naming of candidates as one of the triggers of our disclosure regulations. And the numbers bear out how effective the ads really are. In the final two months before the 2000 election, 94 percent of all the televised issue ad spots were seen as making a case for or against a candidate by the Annenberg study. Ninety-four percent. Now, what was the content of these ads? Well, in the final 2 months of the election, fully 84 percent of those ads seen as electioneering ads were also seen as having an attack component. Over 8 out of every 10 ads were attacking--not comparing or offering information but attacking. But perhaps most compelling is a recent joint study between the Brennan Center and Kenneth Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin and Jonathan Krasno, visiting fellow at Yale. The report specifically studied issue ads within the context of the Snowe-Jeffords test, during the 2000 elections and in the top 75 media markets. And you know what they found? They found that just one percent of all those ads run during the year that were viewed as actual genuine issue ads and mentioned Federal candidates were captured by our provision. In other words, of all the so-called issue ads that ran last year and mentioned Federal candidates, 99 percent of those that ran in the last 60 days were seen as electioneering ads. If you had any test that was accurate 99 percent of the time, I believe you'd say that was a pretty good test. I must emphasize once again that the Supreme Court has never said there is one single, permissible route to determine if a communication is influencing a Federal election. And to explain why that is the case, let me refer to a column written by Norman Ornstein, who was instrumental in developing the Snowe-Jeffords provision along with numerous other constitutional experts. He said, in 1974, ``the Supreme Court rejected as overly broad the 1974 Congressional decision to include in its regulatory net any communication `for the purpose of influencing' a Federal election. Instead, the court drew a line between direct campaign activities, or `express advocacy', and other political speech. The former could be regulated, at least in terms of limits on contributions; the latter had greater first amendment protection. ``How to define express advocacy? The High Court in a footnote gave some suggestions to fill the resulting vacuum and to define the difference between the two kinds of advocacy. Express advocacy, the justices said, would cover communications that included words such as `vote for,' `vote against,' `elect,' or `defeat.' The Court did not say that the only forms of express advocacy are those using the specific words above. Those were examples.'' The bottom line is, Buckley versus Valeo is in effect the law of the land because Congress has not superseded it by filling the vacuum in the quarter century that followed. In other words, since 1976, Congress has not passed a law concerning campaign financing, and so hasn't sent any new law to the Court because we haven't done anything in the last quarter century. So the Court has no guidepost. If Congress acts, the Supreme Court will give its due deference to what we do on behalf of protecting our system of elections. We well know what has happened in the quarter century since. We have seen the kind of development and evolution of these ads--we have a record of how they are seen to be influencing Federal elections. This is a monstrosity that has evolved in terms of the so-called sham ads that are having a true impact on our election process in a way that I do not think the Supreme Court could foresee back in 1976 and we, as candidates, could not possibly envision. Well, now we will. This is a narrowly crafted, well-vetted provision that is vital if we are to say with a straight face that we have done something to enact real campaign finance reform. Again, I'm pleased to have been able to work so closely with Senators McCain and Feingold and others in helping make campaign finance reform both comprehensive and meaningful. This will be a victory for the United States Senate, but most of all a victory for the voters of America.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank Senator Feingold. Madam President, I am delighted to be here this afternoon to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, in support of this campaign finance legislation that clearly will be landmark law for campaign finance in the beginning of this new century.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts, and congratulate the organization for its outstanding and unflagging efforts to make a positive impact on America's girls and young women for the past 90 years. While the Girl Scouts Organization has successfully adapted to the changing times since its founding in 1912, thankfully its core values have remained the same, to teach young girls about their physical health and well-being, provide a place for them to acquire self- confidence and expertise, help them achieve their full potential, encourage them to act with integrity and character, and instill in them the importance of contributing to society and their community. The Girl Scouts of Maine exemplify these values. In addition to fostering the programs that are at the core of girl scouting, the Girl Scouts of Maine have been visionary in creating an initiative to provide young girls, ages 9-12, education on bone health awareness. Considering that the National Osteoporosis Foundation recently found that 30 million women over the age of 50 have some form of osteoporosis, it is critical that girls learn to foster these healthy habits during their formative years. In another example of the innovative work of the Girl Scouts of Maine, the Kennebec Council has launched the Women Investing In Girl Scouts, or WINGS, program. This effort strives to link Maine's vulnerable young girls with successful working women to provide these young girls with guidance and mentoring through their most pivotal and difficult years, in the hopes of decreasing the numbers of Maine girls who fall victim to eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and illegal activity and providing a positive influence at a crucial time. I was heartened to recently learn that one in every seven girls in the State of Maine participates in the Girl Scouts. That's over 12,000 girls, a remarkable level of participation in a State of just one-and- a-quarter million people. Worldwide, the Girl Scouts boast a thriving membership of 3.8 million strong, and this membership continues to grow and prosper. I again want to congratulate the Girl Scouts for 90 years of success, and wish the organization all the best as it embarks on its next 90 years.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of 2002. I am joined in introducing this bill by Senators Frist, Jeffords, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, DeWine, and Gregg. The legislation I am introducing today is the culmination of several months work, though it is, in fact, the second part of an effort that started several years ago. Specifically, in April 1996, I introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act, legislation that was designed to protect people's genetic information and results of genetic testing, or requests for genetic testing, from being used against them by their health insurers. Back then, time was on our side as the completion of the Genome was years off. However, four years later, in June 2000, everything changed with the announcement that the first working draft of the Human Genome was completed. And since that time, science has continued to hurry forward, further opening the door to early detection and medical intervention through the discovery and identification of specific genes linked to diseases like breast cancer, Huntington's Disease, glaucoma, colon cancer and cystic fibrosis. Unfortunately, like so many other scientific breakthroughs in history, the completion of the Genome not only brought about the prospect for medical advances, such as improved detection and intervention, but also potential harm and abuse, as the knowledge of individual genetic information could be used against the very same person it is invented to help. Accordingly, the need for protections against genetic discrimination by both health insurers and employers is becoming more urgent everyday. If, because of concerns about the way the information could be used, people are unwilling to use the potential unlocked by the Genome project to take proactive steps to protect their health and that of their loved ones, then we will never reap the true benefits of this discovery. While we cannot yet prevent diseases such as breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these diseases to take extra precautions. In fact, early detection is the best weapon we have to combat many of these diseases we can now identify, and for breast cancer it is a critical component when one considers that almost 192,000 women were struck by the disease last year. Technological advances in screenings coupled with the ability to identify who carries the gene linked to breast cancer can help us in our efforts to reduce this number. The possibilities for this discovery are limited only by the willingness, or unwillingness, of people to use this knowledge. In 1997, a woman from Maine brought the reality of this dilemma home for me when she wrote of her very real fear of the repercussions associated with genetic testing. Bonnie Lee Tucker has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, because she worries it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. What good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit? Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, has testified before Congress about the next step for those involved in the Genome project. He explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' However, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing. The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers and the second to prevent employment discrimination, based upon genetic information. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. As Congress debated what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. And any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the newly promulgated privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA, and our legislation does just that. Now we must ensure that we protect genetic information, genetic tests, as well as information regarding a request for genetic testing, from being used by the insurer against the patient. Genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder, and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. However, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. It is the difference that we must recognize as we discuss legislation to protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers. Unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is new. And to that end, the legislation I introduce today creates these protections in the workplace. As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is real and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build. As we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law, for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law. In addition it addresses changes in the law that have occurred since the original introduction of my bill and the other bills on this subject. The momentum to address this issue has finally reached a critical mass. Clearly this is an issue whose time has come. It has been more than eighteen months since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. It's my sincere hope that the bi-partisan legislation I introduce today is the beginning of the end of the debate in our effort to ensure that every one of us is just as protected from discrimination because of what is in our genes as we are from our heritages, our genders and our impairments.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of 2002. I am joined in introducing this bill by Senators Frist, Jeffords, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, DeWine, and Gregg. The legislation I am introducing today is the culmination of several months work, though it is, in fact, the second part of an effort that started several years ago. Specifically, in April 1996, I introduced the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act, legislation that was designed to protect people's genetic information and results of genetic testing, or requests for genetic testing, from being used against them by their health insurers. Back then, time was on our side as the completion of the Genome was years off. However, four years later, in June 2000, everything changed with the announcement that the first working draft of the Human Genome was completed. And since that time, science has continued to hurry forward, further opening the door to early detection and medical intervention through the discovery and identification of specific genes linked to diseases like breast cancer, Huntington's Disease, glaucoma, colon cancer and cystic fibrosis. Unfortunately, like so many other scientific breakthroughs in history, the completion of the Genome not only brought about the prospect for medical advances, such as improved detection and intervention, but also potential harm and abuse, as the knowledge of individual genetic information could be used against the very same person it is invented to help. Accordingly, the need for protections against genetic discrimination by both health insurers and employers is becoming more urgent everyday. If, because of concerns about the way the information could be used, people are unwilling to use the potential unlocked by the Genome project to take proactive steps to protect their health and that of their loved ones, then we will never reap the true benefits of this discovery. While we cannot yet prevent diseases such as breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these diseases to take extra precautions. In fact, early detection is the best weapon we have to combat many of these diseases we can now identify, and for breast cancer it is a critical component when one considers that almost 192,000 women were struck by the disease last year. Technological advances in screenings coupled with the ability to identify who carries the gene linked to breast cancer can help us in our efforts to reduce this number. The possibilities for this discovery are limited only by the willingness, or unwillingness, of people to use this knowledge. In 1997, a woman from Maine brought the reality of this dilemma home for me when she wrote of her very real fear of the repercussions associated with genetic testing. Bonnie Lee Tucker has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, because she worries it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. What good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit? Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, has testified before Congress about the next step for those involved in the Genome project. He explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' However, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing. The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers and the second to prevent employment discrimination, based upon genetic information. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. As Congress debated what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information. And any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the newly promulgated privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA, and our legislation does just that. Now we must ensure that we protect genetic information, genetic tests, as well as information regarding a request for genetic testing, from being used by the insurer against the patient. Genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder, and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. However, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. It is the difference that we must recognize as we discuss legislation to protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers. Unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is new. And to that end, the legislation I introduce today creates these protections in the workplace. As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is real and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build. As we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law, for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law. In addition it addresses changes in the law that have occurred since the original introduction of my bill and the other bills on this subject. The momentum to address this issue has finally reached a critical mass. Clearly this is an issue whose time has come. It has been more than eighteen months since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. It's my sincere hope that the bi-partisan legislation I introduce today is the beginning of the end of the debate in our effort to ensure that every one of us is just as protected from discrimination because of what is in our genes as we are from our heritages, our genders and our impairments.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am delighted to cosponsor Senator Kerry's important amendment which would provide necessary assistance to a collapsing commercial groundfish fishery. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. This amendment addresses a very serious problem facing the Northeast, a collapse of its groundfish fishery. This fishery provided over 80 million pounds of food for our Nation last year. This collapse is comparable to a crop failure and is equally deserving of our assistance. The Federal Government has issued three times the number of permits as the fishery can sustain. The fishermen are now being held accountable for the government's actions and subjected to draconian management measures as a result. We need to help them permanently remove some of this extra capacity. In particular, the fishermen who rely on catching cod and other groundfish are in need of assistance. This amendment provides $10 million in disaster assistance for these commercial fisherman. It will bring much needed help to those fishermen who need and more importantly want help. As a voluntary program, this amendment will extend a helping hand to those fishermen who wish to make a transition and permanently exit the multispecies groundfish fishery in the Northeast by giving the Federal Government the means to provide assistance. Additionally, I have worked with Senator Kerry to develop language that ensure the equitable and efficient distribution of this aid. In my home State of Maine, fishing is an integral part of our livelihood, a common thread that runs along our coast and throughout the State. Unfortunately, we are at a time where fisheries in Maine are in trouble and in need of help. This amendment would provide the needed help. It is not often that we are presented with a win-win situation, like we are here. Not only will this amendment provide the funding and flexibility needed to help fisherman, but it will promote conservation of the fishery. I am pleased to support an amendment that will provide the necessary funding and framework to meet one of the many challenges facing our fisherman. Again, I would like to thank Senator Kerry for sponsoring this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, while I am pleased that this body has passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits for thirteen weeks, I rise to express my deep regret at an opportunity lost to help American workers. . .to help create jobs. . .to bolster our economy. . .to provide vital health insurance benefits. . .and to increase our federal surplus projections for the long term. I voted for cloture on both the Daschle and the Grassley-Snowe amendments because the bottom line is, I am convinced an economic stimulus plan would make a vital difference when it comes to the strength of our economic recovery. And I cosponsored Senator Grassley's amendment not only because it is the product of the work of the Centrist Coalition, which I co-chair with Senator Breaux, but also because it was crafted through bipartisan, bicameral negotiations with the White House and already passed the House of Representatives in December on a bipartisan vote. I want to thank all of us who worked so diligently on that package, most especially Senators John Breaux, George Voinovich, Ben Nelson, Susan Collins and Zell Miller. And of course I want to thank Senator Grassley for his remarkable commitment to building consensus and getting a strong stimulus package passed. We earnestly believe and I still believe that the adoption of the Centrist package would have been our best means to get a final conference report to the President's desk, and ensure that the economy and America's workers would benefit from the most robust economic recovery possible. I have said I think it's critical at the beginning of this new legislative session that we start off on the right foot by enacting an economic recovery plan for the American people. I was prepared before Christmas, and many of my colleagues were prepared, to stay here to address the needs of those who have lost their jobs and their health insurance--and to bolster economic growth. Because the fact of the matter is, we knew then what is still very much true today--this economy remains in a recession and people are hurting while Congress has dithered. We now know we lost more jobs last year than in any year since 1982, which was during the worst recession since the Great Depression, and we lost almost a million jobs since the President proposed an economic stimulus plan on October 5. And while the unemployment rate in January fell to 5.6 percent--the first decline in 15 months and certainly better than the alternative--the two-tenths percent drop was likely more a sign of job-seekers giving up than the economy improving. As a February 4 Wall Street Journal article put, ``Economists warned the drop in the jobless rate could be misleading. The January decline was largely due to the fact that the Labor Department reported an unusually large drop of 924,000 in the size of the labor force, to 141.4 million people. A shrinking labor force, say economists, could be a sign workers have become discouraged and have stopped looking for jobs.'' And, finally, consider this statement from the Federal Open Market Committee on January 31--in deciding to keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at 1\3/4\ percent, it said, ``. . .the Committee continues to believe that. . .the risks are weighted mainly toward conditions that may generate economic weakness in the foreseeable future.'' Of course, the economy may, in fact, be on the road to recovery. I certainly hope that's the case. But it's also a question of what kind of recovery. Will it be a robust recovery with rising employment and new job opportunities, or a ``jobless recovery'' as we had back in 1991? Given our nation's war on terrorism both at home and abroad--the future is far from certain. Any ``shock'' could immediately send our economy reeling, so I am especially disappointed that we haven't taken the appropriate steps to ensure that the road to recovery is an ``expressway,'' rather than a dirt road. The bottom line is, a well-structured, comprehensive stimulus package is the means by which we could have at least laid the foundation for such a road. The reality is, such a package could have had an impact on the kind of recovery we ultimately realize. And you don't have to take my word for it. Just two weeks ago, Chairman Greenspan testified before the Senate Budget Committee on the state of the economy. And while some have latched-onto Chairman Greenspan's remarks that ``. . .the economy will recover in any event'' and argue that a stimulus package is, therefore, no longer necessary, it's critical to listen to the rest of testimony. Specifically, when I asked Chairman Greenspan about whether or not a stimulus package could aid in the type of economic recovery we experience, he stated that, although it was difficult to judge how the economy would develop this year, quote: . . .with the potential, at least, that the economy may be more tepid than we would like later in this year, some form of stimulus program probably would be useful. So I, for one, was not prepared to risk a more ``tepid'' recovery-- not with millions of Americans already out of work and America engaged in a war that will be carried out over a matter of years, not months. And based on the Chairman's response, a strong and effective stimulus plan could have been the difference. Moreover, let's not forget--restoring economic growth would not only restore jobs, it would also help restore our projected budget surpluses. Specifically, last week, the Congressional Budget Office outlined new budget surplus estimates for the coming 10 years. As we learned, the projected surplus through the year 2011 has fallen 70 percent, from $5.6 trillion last year to $1.6 trillion today--the most dramatic decline in budget projections ever. While a combination of factors has brought about this decline--including last year's $1.3 trillion tax cut and $550 billion in projected new spending--the most dramatic impact, fully 40 percent of the lost surpluses--or nearly 1.6 trillion dollars--arose from economic and technical changes linked to our current economic decline. What is both alarming and instructive is that a downgrading in projections of economic growth for just a relatively short amount of time clearly has a dramatic impact on our 10-year surplus projections. As you can see by this chart, the contents of which I'd like to submit for the record, CBO has only lowered its economic growth projection for 2001 and 2002--by 1.4 percent and 2.6 percent respectively--while 2007 onward remains the same and 2003 to 2007 is actually higher. And yet, those lowered growth projections for just those two years have dramatically reduced the surplus projections in the long run. This fact, coupled with CBO's estimates that an annual increase in economic growth of only one-tenth of one percent translates into a $244 billion increase in the surplus over 10 years, should tell us something. It should tell us that the benefit of a strong recovery in the near term--and the resulting increase in average economic growth in the long-term--cannot be understated. And the stimulus could have helped us achieve that critical goal. In fact, Bruce Steinberg, a chief economist with Merrill Lynch, estimated in November that a stimulus package could add one percent to economic growth this year. The White House put the figure at half a percentage point, which would put 300,000 more Americans to work, while Macroeconomic Advisers of St. Louis estimated a stimulus package could actually double economic growth projections. And Allen Sinai of Decision Economics argued that a package could mean the difference between a weak rebound, such as in the 1991 recovery, and one with real potency. He said, ``At this point what you're doing, with both monetary and fiscal stimulus, is loading powder into the recovery.'' Which brings me to what happened today on the floor of the Senate. The fact of the matter is, we should have passed the bipartisan Centrist plan that already passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote and enjoyed the support of the White House--and that accomplished what several weeks of bicameral negotiations failed to achieve at the end of last year: a consensus on all provisions addressing the needs of the unemployed, including health insurance assistance, and providing a boost for the economy. And the bottom line, is that developing a consensus requires compromise. The bicameral negotiators made significant progress during their negotiations last year, but, unfortunately, were unable to break through on several final issues and, consequently, negotiations broke down. So, given this stalemate and the risks it posed to workers and the economy, members of the Centrist Coalition--which I co-chair with Senator Breaux and which had already put forward a compromise proposal in November--sat down with Republican leaders and the White House to see if we could reach the agreement that had proven so elusive. And I ask unanimous consent have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a time line of all our efforts on the stimulus package, because I think it illustrates why we had such a strong bipartisan basis for moving forward.

Ms. SNOWE. The fact of the matter is, we already had bipartisan agreement on issues like stimulus checks for low-income individuals, accelerated depreciation, increased expensing, and an extension of and increased funding for unemployment benefits. So we had a sound foundation for a compromise, and the package that cleared the House was the product of our negotiations. That package truly reflected the middle ground on both tax and spending issues that had confounded the bicameral negotiators. Just consider where we started on many of these issues and where we ended up. At the outset, one of the most controversial issues was that of accelerating marginal rate reductions that were adopted last year. While President Bush called for an acceleration of all marginal rate reductions and Democrats opposed any acceleration, the Centrist package would have accelerated the reduction in the 27 percent bracket only, to 25 percent--an imminently reasonable middle ground approach. This change--which only applied to taxable incomes of $27,050 to $65,550 for individuals and $42,500 to $109,250 for married couples-- would have put money in the hands of 36 million taxpayers, or one-third of all taxpayers, at a time when consumer demand needs a boost. And let me make one point perfectly clear--more than two-thirds of these beneficiaries have incomes under $100,000. Or consider another controversial issue: corporate AMT. While the original House-passed package would have repealed the corporate AMT, the Democratic proposal only included a ``hold-harmless'' so that businesses taking advantage of accelerated depreciation and other provisions in the stimulus package would not see an increase in their AMT liability. The Centrist package found the middle ground by ensuring that items that are currently added-back to a company's taxable income for purposes of calculating the AMT--namely, depreciation, net operating losses, and foreign tax credits--would no longer be included in this calculation. And by achieving that compromise, we dramatically reduced the cost of the proposal as well--falling from $25 billion in 2002 in the House-passed package, to $1.3 billion in the White House-Centrist package. But as we learned from the breakdown in the bicameral negotiations, the most controversial element of the stimulus debate proved not to be over tax policy, but on health care assistance for workers who lost their jobs. However, policy trumped ideology and politics during the Centrist negotiations--and our package provided a better benefit more rapidly for more unemployed workers than anything that had been previously proposed. The starting positions on this issue were stark, as the original House-passed measure--and White House position--called for $3 billion in funding to states to help those who could lose their health coverage if they lost their job. The original Centrists package went further by proposing $13.5 billion in federal health care assistance for displaced workers. The $16.7 billion package put forward by Democrats last year proposed a 75 percent subsidy to help displaced workers afford COBRA health coverage, and assistance and coverage through the Medicaid program for individuals who are not eligible for COBRA benefits. The Democratic proposal also offered a temporary increase in federal Medicaid matching funds for states that are struggling with increased Medicaid costs. Many people, including the nation's governors, did not believe the Democrat's proposal for relying on Medicaid was feasible because states would have to contribute about 25 percent of the cost--funds the states do not have because of estimate state revenue shortfalls of $15 billion due to the economic downturn. In fact, the governors were calling for increased federal funding for Medicaid just to maintain coverage and benefit levels for current Medicaid recipients. On the health care issue too, the Centrist package found the middle ground and even went further. Specifically, our bipartisan package would have provided a total of $21 billion in federal health care assistance--or $21 billion more than Senator Daschle proposed in his amendment. I can't understand why or how we could have denied four million hardworking Americans this kind of assistance this year for the sake of shadings in philosophical dispositions. The fact of the matter is, it didn't have to be that way. Our package provided $13 billion in health care tax credits to displaced workers who are eligible for unemployment insurance who do not have other health care coverage, $4 billion in National Emergency Grants, and almost $5 billion in emergency Medicaid funding so states would not have been forced to cut back their current health care programs for children, workers, and families with low-incomes. Indeed, our displaced worker proposal went further in covering displaced workers than any other proposal that was considered-- increasing funding to provide health coverage to displaced workers by almost 700 percent from where we started. This package would have helped those workers who lost their jobs regardless of whether they worked for the largest corporation or the smallest business or even if they were self employed. Under this plan, any worker who involuntarily lost their job and who is eligible or formerly eligible for unemployment insurance benefits would have been eligible for a 60 percent tax credit to use for continued health coverage. Workers would have automatically received a tax credit certificate when they applied for unemployment compensation. The tax credit certificate could have been used toward COBRA coverage from their former employer, if eligible, or for purchasing health insurance coverage of the individual's choosing. The monthly premium payment would have been reduced by the amount of the tax credit so that displaced workers would not be forced to pay the full cost of their health coverage up front, while waiting for federal assistance that would arrive at a later date. In addition the states would have used the $5 billion in National Emergency Grant funding to provide further assistance and additional benefits. The bipartisan agreement gave displaced workers portable assistance that they could use in any part of the country to get health coverage. Displaced workers who cannot continue coverage with their current plan, would have had federal-law protections that require health plans to offer guaranteed issue coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. Our proposal for assisting displaced workers with their health benefits was a straightforward proposal that could have been implemented quickly for all firms and all states because the Department of Labor would have made the funds immediately available to states so they could deliver assistance to displaced workers. The bottom line is that the Centrist package provided the most comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of those who are out of work and an economy trying to pull itself out of a recession. And by enjoying bipartisan, bicameral support as well as the support of the White House--it would have ensured that this relief would be on the way in the fastest manner possible. Again, I deeply regret that stimulus delayed has now become stimulus denied. Exhibit 1

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation intended to correct serious inequities created by existing statutes affecting owners, financing agencies, and low-income residents participating in one of HUD's Section 8 multifamily rental subsidy programs. I have worked closely with the Maine Congressional Delegation on this matter, as well as the Maine State Housing Authority and several housing projects in Maine, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD. At issue is HUD's interpretation of Section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 as it relates to the renewal of Section 8 ``moderate rehabilitation'' contracts in Maine and elsewhere. The effect of HUD's interpretation of current law results in the application of HUD ``published Fair Market Rents.'' Such rents are often well below the actual comparable market rent. If this problem is not addressed, and addressed soon, I am very concerned that we could lose this affordable rental housing stock in Maine, resulting in the displacement of the residents of these properties. The Maine Delegation worked with HUD over the last year to try to identify an administrative solution to this problem, but have been advised by HUD that we must pursue a change in law to enable the projects to obtain reimbursements at a level sufficient to sustain operations. Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today will correct the portion of the statute that could result in the loss of this critical housing stock. The program involved is the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, which is administered by local and state housing agencies throughout the nation. Existing law, contained in Section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, as amended--MAHRA--regarding renewal of expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, treats contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation Program in a fundamentally different way from contracts under the New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Loan Management Set-Aside programs. Section 524(b)(3) of MAHRA provides a separate and distinct formula for calculating renewal rents for expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program. The formula is more restrictive than the formula applicable to expiring contracts under other Section 8 programs, based on an assumption that the debt service payments on the original moderate rehabilitation financing would not be a continuing obligation of the project owner after expiration of the original subsidy contract. The assumption was correct as to many projects under the Moderate Rehabilitation program, but it is not true as to some significant projects serving particularly vulnerable populations, including two very important community projects located in Maine, which I will describe later. Perhaps an even greater concern than the formula itself, however, is a ruling by HUD's Office of General Counsel that Section 524(b)(3) presents the exclusive method for renewal of expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program. In order to appreciate the drastic and problematic results of this opinion, it is necessary to understand the relationship between the Section 8 renewal legislation and the Mark-to-Market program, also enacted by MAHRA. According to HUD, housing subsidy contracts are expiring on thousands of privately owned multifamily properties with federally insured mortgages. Many of these contracts set rents at amounts higher than those of the local market. As these subsidy contracts expire, the Mark- to-Market program will reduce rents to market levels and will restructure existing debt to levels supportable by these rents. The basic principle of this integrated legislative structure is that for projects financed by FHA-insured mortgages, expiring Section 8 contracts which are subsidizing rents higher than market rents in the area will be renewed at rents reduced to a level not higher than the market rents. Where this reduced rent will not support debt service on the FHA-insured mortgage, the mortgage will be restructured pursuant to Mark-to-Market. The basic tradeoff is that while the Federal Government may bear some cost in the FHA insurance fund, it will be a lesser cost than continuing to subsidize above-market rents. However, not all Section 8 projects are financed by FHA-insured mortgages. Many, instead, are financed by State housing agency bond- financed mortgages without FHA insurance, and some are even conventionally financed. The legislation provides, therefore, for an important ``exception'' to the requirement that rents be reduced upon renewal to market rents. Under Sections 524(b)(1) and (2), Section 8 contracts for ``exception'' projects--which are principally projects not eligible for Mark-to-Market because their mortgages are not FHA- insured--may be renewed at rents not exceeding the lower of current rents, as adjusted by an operating cost adjustment factor, and a ``budget-based rent'' approved by HUD, notwithstanding that such rents may exceed market rents in the area. The effect of the HUD ruling that Section 524(b)(3) provides the exclusive authority for renewing expiring contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation program is that ``exception'' project treatment under Section 524(b)(1) and (2) is made unavailable for Moderate Rehabilitation projects. The irony of this is that while the majority of Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation projects, and of course all Loan Management Set-Aside projects, are financed by FHA-insured mortgages--and therefore non-insured projects are truly the ``exception'' under those programs--the opposite is true in the Moderate Rehabilitation program. Information provided by HUD indicates that not more than approximately 13 percent of all units ever subsidized under the Moderate Rehabilitation program were in projects financed by FHA- insured mortgages. Non-insured mortgages, therefore, were the rule, not the exception, in the Moderate Rehabilitation program. The impact of this circumstance is well illustrated by two projects in Maine, both of which represent vital community resources for highly vulnerable low-income populations. Loring House is a 104-unit development in Portland. The building originally was the Portland City Hospital, which was closed by the City in the early 1980s. It was converted to a residential facility for elderly and handicapped residents with significant public participation and support, including tax-exempt bond first mortgage financing by the Maine State Housing Authority, Moderate Rehabilitation Section 8 rental subsidies from the Portland and Westbrook public housing authorities, and second mortgage operating deficit financing by the Portland Housing Development Corporation. The Loring House Section 8 contract expired in stages commencing December 31, 2000. The Loring House mortgage financing is not FHA- insured, but based on the HUD opinion I described, ``exception'' project treatment was denied. Under the Section 524(b)(3) formula, the Section 8 contract rents were reduced approximately 14 percent on renewal--this notwithstanding that the project was already incurring substantial operating deficits, supported by public operating deficit financing, even under the previous rents. The ultimate financial risk on this development is borne by the Maine State Housing Authority. Loring House is an important community resource aside from the substantial public stake in its financing. Since 1985, the resident population has undergone a significant transformation, attributable largely to deinstitutionalization of two state mental institutions and concentration of State-supported comprehensive mental health services in the Portland area. It is estimated that currently 70 percent of the tenant population are impacted by mental health, mental retardation and/or substance abuse issues. This change in population served has increased the total independence of the project on project-based assistance if it is to continue to serve this population. The only feasible avenue to financial survival of this facility, much less to its continued ability to serve its special population, is availability of ``exception'' project treatment. Maison Marcotte is a 128-unit congregate care facility located in Lewiston. The building was built originally in the 1920s as a nursing home on a health care campus owned by the Sisters of Charity Health System. Following construction of a new nursing home on the campus in the early 1980s, the Health System ground leased the former nursing home to a for-profit development group which renovated the facility into several discrete uses, including a kitchen and cafeteria facility for the health care campus, a wing of physician offices, and 128 one- bedroom congregate care units. The renovation was assisted by a 110- unit Moderate Rehabilitation award by the Lewiston Housing Authority; 18 units are private-pay. A nonprofit subsidiary of Sisters of Charity Health System took over possession and operation of the facility following a Chapter 11 reorganization of the for-profit developer in the late 1980s. The bank debt on the facility was refinanced in 1993 by a tax-exempt bond financed first mortgage loan made by the Maine State Housing Authority which matures in 2023. The mortgage financing is not FHA-insured. The Moderate Rehabilitation HAP Contract expires October 31, 2001. The current Moderate Rehabilitation contract rents for the one- bedroom units are substantially lower than the private-pay rents for similar units in the facility. Nevertheless, contract renewal pursuant to the existing Section 524(b)(3) formula would result in a 20-percent rent reduction, which clearly would threaten survival of the project. The financial risk, again, is borne solely by the Maine State Housing Authority. The property might appear to have the option of opting out and converting to all private-pay units at the higher rental, but that is not the desire of the nonprofit operator nor would it be consistent with the low-income use restrictions arising from the tax-exempt bond issue. The only feasible outcome for this facility which would permit continuance of its commitment to very low-income elderly residents is renewal at ``exception rent'' pursuant to Section 524(b)(1). I find it inconceivable that Congress consciously intended to impose the financial impact of Section 8 rent reductions in cases such as these onto State housing finance agencies. I also have no reason to think that the circumstances of these two projects, in which state housing agencies have undertaken the financing risk of long-term mortgages backed by short-term rental subsidy contracts because of the important public purposes of the projects, are unique to the State of Maine. The legislation I am introducing today, therefore, would correct this inequity by simply striking subsection (b)(3) of Section 524. Under this legislation, the renewal of expiring contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation program would be governed by the same renewal rent provisions as are applicable to expiring contracts in the New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs, including the availability of ``exception'' project rents where the project financing is not FHA-insured. Finally, the legislation would also strike one other current provision of the Section 8 renewal legislation which singles out Moderate Rehabilitation projects for unfavorable treatment and, more importantly, excludes Moderate Rehabilitation projects from the important policy preference for encouraging Section 8 project owners to continue their participation in the program and thereby maintain the availability of the units for low-income occupancy. An essential tool for the preservation program, as strengthened by amendments to MAHRA enacted in 1999, is the ability to permit Section 8 owners currently receiving below-market rents under expiring contracts to receive rent increases upon renewal up to the level of market rents in the area, in exchange for a commitment to remain in the program for not less than an additional 5 years. Expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program were excluded from this authority. However, from the standpoint of lower-income families needing subsidized housing opportunities in their communities, I believe the preservation of units which happen to be subsidized under the Moderate Rehabilitation program is no less vital than preservation of units under other subdivisions of the Section 8 program. The Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, while relatively small in comparison to the New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation programs, is nevertheless widespread throughout the nation, in both large and small communities. It also has suffered a marked attrition of units, presumably due in large part to owner opt-outs in recent years. Information provided by HUD indicates that out of the total of approximately 120,000 units that we assisted under the Moderate Rehabilitation program, 52,000 units remained in the program in May 2000. HUD information also indicated that 113 separate housing agencies in 42 States across the nation plus Puerto Rico, including State as well as local agencies, had 100 or more units under contract in May 2000. Since many if not most Moderate Rehabilitation project owners receive rents under their original contracts that are lower than market rents, it cannot be doubted that the ability to receive market rents could encourage many owners to remain in the program and to continue to provide affordable housing opportunities for their communities. Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today would also strike the current exclusion of contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program from the ability to receive renewal rents increased to market rent levels. The overall effect of my legislation is to place expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program on an equal footing with other expiring Section 8 contracts having similar characteristics in terms of comparison of contract rents with market rents and in terms of financing source--HUD-insured or non-insured. I believe that preservation of these critical housing units is an imperative to my constituents and the communities I represent, as well as communities and projects elsewhere. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation intended to correct serious inequities created by existing statutes affecting owners, financing agencies, and low-income residents participating in one of HUD's Section 8 multifamily rental subsidy programs. I have worked closely with the Maine Congressional Delegation on this matter, as well as the Maine State Housing Authority and several housing projects in Maine, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD. At issue is HUD's interpretation of Section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 as it relates to the renewal of Section 8 ``moderate rehabilitation'' contracts in Maine and elsewhere. The effect of HUD's interpretation of current law results in the application of HUD ``published Fair Market Rents.'' Such rents are often well below the actual comparable market rent. If this problem is not addressed, and addressed soon, I am very concerned that we could lose this affordable rental housing stock in Maine, resulting in the displacement of the residents of these properties. The Maine Delegation worked with HUD over the last year to try to identify an administrative solution to this problem, but have been advised by HUD that we must pursue a change in law to enable the projects to obtain reimbursements at a level sufficient to sustain operations. Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today will correct the portion of the statute that could result in the loss of this critical housing stock. The program involved is the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, which is administered by local and state housing agencies throughout the nation. Existing law, contained in Section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, as amended--MAHRA--regarding renewal of expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, treats contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation Program in a fundamentally different way from contracts under the New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Loan Management Set-Aside programs. Section 524(b)(3) of MAHRA provides a separate and distinct formula for calculating renewal rents for expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program. The formula is more restrictive than the formula applicable to expiring contracts under other Section 8 programs, based on an assumption that the debt service payments on the original moderate rehabilitation financing would not be a continuing obligation of the project owner after expiration of the original subsidy contract. The assumption was correct as to many projects under the Moderate Rehabilitation program, but it is not true as to some significant projects serving particularly vulnerable populations, including two very important community projects located in Maine, which I will describe later. Perhaps an even greater concern than the formula itself, however, is a ruling by HUD's Office of General Counsel that Section 524(b)(3) presents the exclusive method for renewal of expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program. In order to appreciate the drastic and problematic results of this opinion, it is necessary to understand the relationship between the Section 8 renewal legislation and the Mark-to-Market program, also enacted by MAHRA. According to HUD, housing subsidy contracts are expiring on thousands of privately owned multifamily properties with federally insured mortgages. Many of these contracts set rents at amounts higher than those of the local market. As these subsidy contracts expire, the Mark- to-Market program will reduce rents to market levels and will restructure existing debt to levels supportable by these rents. The basic principle of this integrated legislative structure is that for projects financed by FHA-insured mortgages, expiring Section 8 contracts which are subsidizing rents higher than market rents in the area will be renewed at rents reduced to a level not higher than the market rents. Where this reduced rent will not support debt service on the FHA-insured mortgage, the mortgage will be restructured pursuant to Mark-to-Market. The basic tradeoff is that while the Federal Government may bear some cost in the FHA insurance fund, it will be a lesser cost than continuing to subsidize above-market rents. However, not all Section 8 projects are financed by FHA-insured mortgages. Many, instead, are financed by State housing agency bond- financed mortgages without FHA insurance, and some are even conventionally financed. The legislation provides, therefore, for an important ``exception'' to the requirement that rents be reduced upon renewal to market rents. Under Sections 524(b)(1) and (2), Section 8 contracts for ``exception'' projects--which are principally projects not eligible for Mark-to-Market because their mortgages are not FHA- insured--may be renewed at rents not exceeding the lower of current rents, as adjusted by an operating cost adjustment factor, and a ``budget-based rent'' approved by HUD, notwithstanding that such rents may exceed market rents in the area. The effect of the HUD ruling that Section 524(b)(3) provides the exclusive authority for renewing expiring contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation program is that ``exception'' project treatment under Section 524(b)(1) and (2) is made unavailable for Moderate Rehabilitation projects. The irony of this is that while the majority of Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation projects, and of course all Loan Management Set-Aside projects, are financed by FHA-insured mortgages--and therefore non-insured projects are truly the ``exception'' under those programs--the opposite is true in the Moderate Rehabilitation program. Information provided by HUD indicates that not more than approximately 13 percent of all units ever subsidized under the Moderate Rehabilitation program were in projects financed by FHA- insured mortgages. Non-insured mortgages, therefore, were the rule, not the exception, in the Moderate Rehabilitation program. The impact of this circumstance is well illustrated by two projects in Maine, both of which represent vital community resources for highly vulnerable low-income populations. Loring House is a 104-unit development in Portland. The building originally was the Portland City Hospital, which was closed by the City in the early 1980s. It was converted to a residential facility for elderly and handicapped residents with significant public participation and support, including tax-exempt bond first mortgage financing by the Maine State Housing Authority, Moderate Rehabilitation Section 8 rental subsidies from the Portland and Westbrook public housing authorities, and second mortgage operating deficit financing by the Portland Housing Development Corporation. The Loring House Section 8 contract expired in stages commencing December 31, 2000. The Loring House mortgage financing is not FHA- insured, but based on the HUD opinion I described, ``exception'' project treatment was denied. Under the Section 524(b)(3) formula, the Section 8 contract rents were reduced approximately 14 percent on renewal--this notwithstanding that the project was already incurring substantial operating deficits, supported by public operating deficit financing, even under the previous rents. The ultimate financial risk on this development is borne by the Maine State Housing Authority. Loring House is an important community resource aside from the substantial public stake in its financing. Since 1985, the resident population has undergone a significant transformation, attributable largely to deinstitutionalization of two state mental institutions and concentration of State-supported comprehensive mental health services in the Portland area. It is estimated that currently 70 percent of the tenant population are impacted by mental health, mental retardation and/or substance abuse issues. This change in population served has increased the total independence of the project on project-based assistance if it is to continue to serve this population. The only feasible avenue to financial survival of this facility, much less to its continued ability to serve its special population, is availability of ``exception'' project treatment. Maison Marcotte is a 128-unit congregate care facility located in Lewiston. The building was built originally in the 1920s as a nursing home on a health care campus owned by the Sisters of Charity Health System. Following construction of a new nursing home on the campus in the early 1980s, the Health System ground leased the former nursing home to a for-profit development group which renovated the facility into several discrete uses, including a kitchen and cafeteria facility for the health care campus, a wing of physician offices, and 128 one- bedroom congregate care units. The renovation was assisted by a 110- unit Moderate Rehabilitation award by the Lewiston Housing Authority; 18 units are private-pay. A nonprofit subsidiary of Sisters of Charity Health System took over possession and operation of the facility following a Chapter 11 reorganization of the for-profit developer in the late 1980s. The bank debt on the facility was refinanced in 1993 by a tax-exempt bond financed first mortgage loan made by the Maine State Housing Authority which matures in 2023. The mortgage financing is not FHA-insured. The Moderate Rehabilitation HAP Contract expires October 31, 2001. The current Moderate Rehabilitation contract rents for the one- bedroom units are substantially lower than the private-pay rents for similar units in the facility. Nevertheless, contract renewal pursuant to the existing Section 524(b)(3) formula would result in a 20-percent rent reduction, which clearly would threaten survival of the project. The financial risk, again, is borne solely by the Maine State Housing Authority. The property might appear to have the option of opting out and converting to all private-pay units at the higher rental, but that is not the desire of the nonprofit operator nor would it be consistent with the low-income use restrictions arising from the tax-exempt bond issue. The only feasible outcome for this facility which would permit continuance of its commitment to very low-income elderly residents is renewal at ``exception rent'' pursuant to Section 524(b)(1). I find it inconceivable that Congress consciously intended to impose the financial impact of Section 8 rent reductions in cases such as these onto State housing finance agencies. I also have no reason to think that the circumstances of these two projects, in which state housing agencies have undertaken the financing risk of long-term mortgages backed by short-term rental subsidy contracts because of the important public purposes of the projects, are unique to the State of Maine. The legislation I am introducing today, therefore, would correct this inequity by simply striking subsection (b)(3) of Section 524. Under this legislation, the renewal of expiring contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation program would be governed by the same renewal rent provisions as are applicable to expiring contracts in the New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs, including the availability of ``exception'' project rents where the project financing is not FHA-insured. Finally, the legislation would also strike one other current provision of the Section 8 renewal legislation which singles out Moderate Rehabilitation projects for unfavorable treatment and, more importantly, excludes Moderate Rehabilitation projects from the important policy preference for encouraging Section 8 project owners to continue their participation in the program and thereby maintain the availability of the units for low-income occupancy. An essential tool for the preservation program, as strengthened by amendments to MAHRA enacted in 1999, is the ability to permit Section 8 owners currently receiving below-market rents under expiring contracts to receive rent increases upon renewal up to the level of market rents in the area, in exchange for a commitment to remain in the program for not less than an additional 5 years. Expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program were excluded from this authority. However, from the standpoint of lower-income families needing subsidized housing opportunities in their communities, I believe the preservation of units which happen to be subsidized under the Moderate Rehabilitation program is no less vital than preservation of units under other subdivisions of the Section 8 program. The Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, while relatively small in comparison to the New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation programs, is nevertheless widespread throughout the nation, in both large and small communities. It also has suffered a marked attrition of units, presumably due in large part to owner opt-outs in recent years. Information provided by HUD indicates that out of the total of approximately 120,000 units that we assisted under the Moderate Rehabilitation program, 52,000 units remained in the program in May 2000. HUD information also indicated that 113 separate housing agencies in 42 States across the nation plus Puerto Rico, including State as well as local agencies, had 100 or more units under contract in May 2000. Since many if not most Moderate Rehabilitation project owners receive rents under their original contracts that are lower than market rents, it cannot be doubted that the ability to receive market rents could encourage many owners to remain in the program and to continue to provide affordable housing opportunities for their communities. Accordingly, the legislation I am introducing today would also strike the current exclusion of contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program from the ability to receive renewal rents increased to market rent levels. The overall effect of my legislation is to place expiring contracts under the Moderate Rehabilitation program on an equal footing with other expiring Section 8 contracts having similar characteristics in terms of comparison of contract rents with market rents and in terms of financing source--HUD-insured or non-insured. I believe that preservation of these critical housing units is an imperative to my constituents and the communities I represent, as well as communities and projects elsewhere. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the precedent of arbitrarily determining the acceptable market name of any fish. We have never before set into statute a market name for any animal or plant. In the case of fish, the Food and Drug Administration works with the National Marine Fisheries Service to review the available scientific literature and common market practices. They will then provide the fishing industry with guidance on acceptable names for their catch. This is to ensure that the consumers are getting what they expect. We have seen other countries draw arbitrary lines in the sand. In 1995, the French tried to say that only the local French scallop could be called by their common name, ``coquilles St. Jacques.'' The result was that scallop fishermen in the United States who export their catch to France were essentially blocked from the market. You simply can't create a new name for a scallop and have consumers recognize what it is. Peru and Chile challenged the French restriction at the WTO. The United States filed briefs in support of that challenge. The WTO ruled that the French restriction had no scientific basis and could not stand. Unfortunately, that was not the end of this trend of discriminatory naming practices. Right now, the European Union has a restriction in place that prevents U.S. sardine fishermen from both the east and west coasts from selling their catch using any form of the word ``sardine.'' Fishermen in my home State are even prevented from clearly identifying their product as not being from the EU and selling their fish as ``Maine sardines'' as they had in the past. This restriction is also being appealed at the WTO by Peru. The U.S. Trade Representative had been working with the U.S. sardine fishermen to file a brief in support of this challenge. As a result of the language included into the Fiscal Year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill, however, the USTR determined that filing such a brief would be contrary to statute. As a result, the U.S. sardine fishermen have to rely on the Peruvian Government to prove the scientific merits of the case and regain their market access. We must put a stop to this trend of arbitrary and discriminatory fisheries naming practices. In 2000, the United States exported over $10 billion worth of edible and non-edible fish and shellfish. This was a $900 million increase over 1999. Access to foreign markets is absolutely critical to our fishermen, and these naming practices only serve to undercut their efforts. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the amendment before us.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Authorization Act, the primary Federal law affecting K-12 education today. Completion of this reauthorization was a long time coming, considering that the original reauthorization expired last year and that the Senate passed its bill 6 months ago. It is critical that the Senate approve this report prior to adjourning for the session. The fact is, while education is primarily a local and State responsibility, the seven percent of funding the Federal Government does provide plays a key role in preparing today's students for tomorrow's workforce. We have been faced with the daunting task of reauthorizing and revamping the Federal Government's entire K-12 commitment, and the passage of this conference report comes not a moment too soon for the young men and women of America. We have spent $120 billion in title I education funds over the last 35 years, yet we have failed to close the achievement gap between students in high-income and low-income families. We spend near the maximum for students each year compared to our foreign competitors, $5,300 for a primary education, yet have one of the poorest test records in math, reading and science, with only 40 percent of grade school students meeting today's basic reading standards and only 20 percent who are prepared for high school math. The cold hard truth is that with 89 percent of our kids in public schools, that is almost 50 million students, we cannot afford to let this happen any longer. So I applaud President Bush for following through on his promises and making education a cornerstone of his Presidency. He has continually set the proper tone by making a case for ensuring that greater flexibility goes hand-in-hand with accountability. Indeed, the conference report before us creates unprecedented flexibility for States and local educational agencies, while increasing accountability to ensure that they are getting the job done. This reauthorization allows States to help schools that have not met their annual goal through the dedication of additional resources to help turn the school around, while guaranteeing students access to supplemental services to bolster their education. Students are not trapped in failing schools, as the conference report ensures that students in a failing school can transfer to another public school if their home school is considered to be failing for more than 1 year. In order to have accountability there needs to be some sort of ruler by which to measure the school's success. I am pleased that the conference report allows States to determine not only the assessment system but also the annual achievement goals. My own State of Maine has worked for several years to develop its own assessment system to ensure that our students, and our schools, are achieving. Having witnessed the evolution of Maine's Learning Results Program over the past several years, I would not support this conference report if I thought that it would interfere with Maine's efforts. To the contrary, I believe it would build on those efforts, and therefore I will support passage of the conference report. Additionally, passage of the conference report is supported by Maine's Commissioner of Education, Duke Albanese. My support for this package is tempered only by my disappointment that the conferees did fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, supported the inclusion of mandatory full funding for IDEA during consideration of the ESEA bill in the spring. IDEA is an unfunded mandate that is draining precious resources from our States and in each and every community. Twenty-six years ago, Congress committed to paying 40 percent of IDEA funding, and we have yet to come close. While Congress has more than doubled IDEA funding over the past 5 years, the Federal Government has not contributed more than 15 percent of the total cost of IDEA. Full funding would free up billions of dollars nationwide, and approximately $60 million in Maine, freeing up local and State education money which can then be used for other pressing needs. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have fought for full funding of IDEA and this is a fight I will not give up. Those conferees who opposed including the full funding provisions in this conference report argued that this program cannot be made mandatory until the program is reformed and reauthorized. Fortunately, IDEA is due for reauthorization next year and I will be working to ensure that it is fully funded. I appreciate the diligence of my colleagues who sit on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in this effort, and I look forward to supporting this conference report and sending it to the President for his signature. I believe this legislation will make an important difference in the future of our children as well as our Nation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the consensus that has been reached on dairy programs within the farm bill we are considering today. The farm bill, which needs authorization every 5 years, not only addresses farm income and commodity price support programs, but also includes titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment, nutrition and domestic food assistance, agricultural credit, rural development, and agricultural research and education. I am particularly pleased that the Harkin bill before us restores the safety net for diary farmers in Maine and in 11 other States in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic with a provision that will again give monthly payments to small dairy producers only when fluid milk prices fall below the Boston price of $16.94 per hundredweight. As my colleagues are aware, the successful Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was allowed to expire on September 30. Throughout New England, this compact literally kept small dairy farms in production. When it was in effect, this compact paid for the program by adding a small incremental cost to the price of milk already set by the current Federal milk marketing order system, which determines the floor price for fluid milk in New England. Along with 38 of my Senate colleagues and the legislatures and Governors of 25 States, I have made numerous attempts throughout this past year to have the compact reauthorized and a new Southern Compact authorized. Dairy compacting is really a States rights issue more than anything else, as the only action the Senate needed to take was to give its congressional consent under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 3, to allow the 25 States who requested to compact to proceed with these two independent compacts. Unfortunately, we could not get a majority of votes for the Senate's permission to allow dairy compacting to go forward even though half of the States in the country had requested this approval. So, since my number one agricultural priority has been to assure that Maine dairy farmers have a safety net when prices are low that would allow them to stay on their small family farms, I have attempted to bridge the gap with opponents of compacts. I am very pleased that we were able to forge a compromise that is included in the Harkin amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Agriculture Committee-passed farm bill that pledges $2 billion to help dairy farmers throughout the Nation. Most important to me, the provision provides $500 million to establish the very safety net for New England dairy farmers, and also for farmers in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia, that was provided by the Northeast Dairy Compact, that of monthly payments to producers when the price of Class I, or fluid, milk drops below the Boston, MA price of $16.94. These States produce approximately 20 percent of the Nation's milk and under this provision will receive about 20 percent of the funding, so this is a very fair balance of payments. Dairy farmers from other States will also benefit through a $1.5 billion provision that will extend the current national dairy price support system for farmers in the other 36 contiguous States, requiring the Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, to purchase surplus nonfat dry milk, cheese, and butter from dairy processors, thus protecting the industry from seasonal imbalances of supply and demand. The authority for this price support system that pays $9.90 per hundredweight was due to expire this December, but was extended for 5 months, or until May 2002, in the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture appropriations bill. The farm bill before us extends both of these dairy programs for 5 years. Do I believe this is the best way to fund dairy programs? In my estimation, the Northeast Dairy Compact was preferable because not one cent came out of Federal funds and it also had no appreciable effect on consumer prices. So, the provisions in the farm bill we are considering, unfortunately, will cost the Government $2 billion. This is not much considering the billions of dollars that go to for price supports for other farm commodities, but it is Federal money nonetheless. But, the reality is that compromises must be made to ensure that the majority of Senators feel that a consensus has been reached that they can live with, and I thank the Senators from the upper Midwest, who did not want a compact-like dairy program for their region but preferred direct yearly Federal payments, for working together with us on the dairy provisions. My motive throughout this year has been a simple one: I do not want to see one more small family dairy farmer in Maine, or in any other rural area of the country, go out of business. And I do not want to see any more acreage of pastoral farmland in New England, most of which has been in families for three generations, turned over to suburban sprawl. So I am pleased with the compromise and feel that my goal has been reached, not for myself, but for the dairy farmers to whom I have pledged not to give up the fight. The farm bill before us also recognizes the diversity and regional differences in agriculture, and shifts $1 billion to voluntary agriculture programs, especially in regions that have been traditionally underserved by past farm bills, such as my State of Maine, I want to thank the bipartisan group that worked with me through the ``Eggplant Caucus'', an ad hoc group of bipartisan Northeast Senators, to make these funds a reality and for bringing regional equity through an increase in Federal funding to our States. This conservation funding, for which Maine stands to receive a minimum of $12 million a year for the next 5 years, will help our farmers improve water quality, restore wildlife habitat and stave off suburban sprawl. In the past, more than half of our farmers have been turned away from conservation assistance because these popular programs have not had the funding to meet the applcations. More funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, for instance, will allow many more farmers to enroll in contracts to manage natural resource concerns. The voluntary program offers cost share and incentive payments and technical assistance to design and install practices for locally-designated natural resource priorities. Another aspect of regional equity in the bill are provisions that improve assistance to our Nation's fruit and vegetable growers, the specialty crop sector. This growing sector of the U.S. farm economy represents almost one-fifth of all farm cash receipts and a growing portion of our Nation's agriculture exports. I am very pleased to note provisions for a fruit and vegetable pilot promotion program and a USDA purchase program for specialty crops, providing funds so that the USDA can purchase those fruits and vegetables that are the most prevalent crops grown in the Northeast to be used in the Federal nutrition programs, such as potatoes, blueberries and cranberries from my State of Maine. I would like to add that I have heard from farmers in my State of their support for the creation of tax-sheltered savings accounts, or `'rainy day accounts'', to which farmers could contribute during prosperous years, and from which they could draw during lean years. While not contained in the Harkin bill, I believe this idea should be further explored on its merits, and would hope that the Senate would consider hearings on this in the near future. Taken in its totality, the Harkin bill gives our dairy producers a safety net through a mutually agreeable dairy program, regional equity in the disbursement of federal funding for voluntary conservation programs, funding for a variety of forestry programs important to our private landowners, and promotion for specialty crops grown in Maine. Additionally, if Maine participated in all the options for the Food Stamp Program, the State would realize approximately as much as $32 million over the next 10 years. I believe the Harkin bill before us gives needed assistance to the agricultural community throughout the Nation. We should never forget that these hard working men and women are responsible for providing our Nation with the highest quality of a tremendous variety of quality food products easily accessible at our local markets and at the lowest cost of any nation in the world.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to support the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization conference report which we passed today. As a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and 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 this report. I also want to acknowledge the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and the ranking member, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner, for their superb leadership throughout the entire defense authorization process. First and foremost, the conference report continues to recognized the invaluable contributions--especially since the tragic events of September 11 and the subsequent advent of the war on terrorism--of our service members through significant improvements to their quality of life. In addition to substantial pay raises of five to ten percent, the report includes over $10.5 billion for military housing construction, which is a desperately needed increase of over $500 million from last year's authorization; continues to improve upon the coverage and quality of healthcare for our active duty military members, retirees, and their family members; expands education benefits for service members and their families; and enhances the ability of active duty personnel to participate in federal, state, and local elections. Secondly, the bill reaffirms Congress' commitment to the war against terrorism by meeting the funding requirements needed to support our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen that are on the front lines with the planes, vehicles, ships, and armament they need to carry out their missions. Whether providing over $30 million to improve field living conditions for the ground troops, augmenting the Army, Navy, and Air Force budgets by over $560 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, or increasing funding for F-15 and F-16 engine conversions, this bill supports the diverse missions our armed forces are accomplishing to meet the national military strategy. Given my tenure of the Seapower Committee and home state of Maine, I cannot overlook the substantial funding for ship construction provided by this bill. The conference report addresses the future of our nation's Navy and the importance of recapitalization of our fleet by authorizing the construction of five new ships. This includes $3 billion for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers--the most advanced surface combatant in the world; $370 million for the new ammunition and cargo ship, the T-AKE; and $2.3 billion for a Virginia class attack submarine. Additionally, the committee has laid substantial ground work for continuing to modernize our amphibious fleet in fiscal year 2003 through the authorization of $421 million and $260 million in advance procurement funding for the LPD-17 and LHD programs, respectively. I am also pleased to see that the Committee did not lose sight of the administration's long-term goals of transforming and modernizing the military. While we fall short of the Defense Department's goal of allocating three percent of the defense budget to investing in future defense development programs, it does include substantial funding to meet asymmetrical terrorist threats including chemical and biological weapons and develop the agility, mobility, and survivability necessary to meet the challenges of the future that we are glimpsing today in Afghanistan. I voted for this legislation because I believe that it is critically important to ensure that our armed forces are fully prepared to carry out America's war on terrorism. However, I support the bill despite my strong opposition to provisions authorizing a round of base closures in 2005. Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, I had serious questions about both the integrity of the base closing process itself as well as the actual benefits realized. Now, with acts of war committed against the United States, I do not believe this is the time to be talking about closure of bases. The base closure provision in this conference report requires that the Department of Defense submit a comprehensive force structure plan to Congress detailing the relationship between defense requirements and infrastructure. This is something I have been calling for 4 years. But I believe we need this plan before we debate base closures, not after we have already authorized them. This is putting the cart before the horse. Before we legislate defense-wide policy that will reduce the size number of training areas critical to our force readiness, the Department of Defense ought to be able to tell us that level of operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support our shifting national security requirements. Congress, instead, was pressed to authorize base closures essentially in the dark. The administration and proponents of additional base closure rounds claim that reducing infrastructure has not kept pace with other post- cold-war military force reductions. They say 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 we have reduced the military force structure by 36 percent and have reduced the defense by 40 percent. But whiles the size of the armed services has decreased, the number of contingencies that our service members have been called upon to respond to in recent years has dramatically increased. And, keep in mind, Mr. President, once property is relinquished and remedied, it is permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes. In addition, advocates of base closure alleged 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. I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and submariners, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defense 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 of terrorism. We must not degrade the readiness of our armed forces by closing more bases. so I strenuously oppose the base closure provisions win this legislation, and before it is a fundamental mistake to include it in the DOD authorization. With the exception of the basis closure provisions, this defense bill takes a positive stem toward modernizing our armed services, meeting their operational and maintenance funding requirements, and improving the quality of service for our committed men and women of the military.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the legislation before the Senate which is designed to overhaul aviation security in this Nation. This is an issue of vital national importance in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and a conferee on the aviation security conference, I fought for the strongest possible enhancements to our existing system. I believe we succeeded in this endeavor. Going into the conference, I felt we needed to confront the issue of federalization head-on, and I believe we have done that. We needed to send an unequivocal message to the American people that the government is taking control of security, and it is safe to fly. I believe we have accomplished that. When this bill is signed into law, the status quo is history. The agreement before us will federalize virtually all security screeners. The Federal Government will take immediate control of the system. Once the Federal system has been imposed and we have had a chance to evaluate it, individual airports that meet strict federal standards will have the flexibility to deploy law enforcement personnel or contract screeners. This is very similar to an approach I had suggested to the conference committee leadership, under which all screeners would be Federal employees, and then after 4 years, a review of the system could be done. The Federal Government will provide direct management and oversight, set strict new standards, ensure that they are followed, and will have the power to fire screeners who don't measure up to the standards. We won't have a system where anybody's financial ``bottom line'' is a competing priority with protecting the flying public. We will have a reliable, professional force of security screeners. This is what Americans have been calling for in airport after airport. And it is what they are going to get. The system will be seamless. There will be no gaps in control or oversight. It will be uniform. The Senate version of the bill would have transferred control of the screening system to the Department of Justice. The conference agreement gives control to a new Transportation Security Under Secretary. I would have preferred that we vest this critical security responsibility with an agency with a historic law enforcement function. Nonetheless, passengers will know that they can count on the same level of security throughout the system, whether they are boarding at LAX, Chicago O'Hare, or the Portland, ME, Jetport. There will be no question about who is accountable. And it won't be a private for-profit company--it will be the Federal Government. Furthermore, this package meets the critical goal of addressing the interlocking rings of aviation security, from the perimeter to the airport to on-board security, because ultimately, the system is only as strong as its weakest link. It will address the gamut of critical issues, including baggage screening, additional air marshals, and cockpit security. In addition to imposing Federal control on security screening operations, there are a number of provisions in the bill that I worked hard to secure. For example, the bill will ensure the screening of all checked baggage within 60 days, and all checked bags will be screened with highly sophisticated explosives detection equipment by the end of next year under the deadline set forth in the agreement, a top priority of mine. The legislation will increase the number of air marshals as well. Shortly after the tragic attacks in September, I cosponsored legislation by Senator Hutchison to boost the Air Marshal Program, and I believe this is a critical step. It will ensure that any potential terrorist will know they could be flying with one or more armed marshals, trained to take control in the event of an attempted hijacking. The bill provides for background checks for students enrolled in flight training. I introduced legislation to require background checks for foreign nationals seeking such training. A background check provision was included in the Senate bill, and a similar provision is included in the conference agreement. This will ensure that federal law enforcement authorities are alerted in the event that an individual with known ties to terrorist groups attempts to obtain flight training. The bill also includes provisions I worked for directing the new Transportation Security Under Secretary, created in this measure, to focus on the critical mission of better coordinating all modes of transportation nationwide particularly in preparation for emergencies such as the events that unfolded on September 11. And I would like to thank Senators Hollings and McCain, in particular, for working with me and for their support on this important issue. I am very pleased we were able to come together in a bipartisan way to send a comprehensive package to the President that will restore the confidence of the American people. Because the images of the unspeakable horrors of the recent terrorist attacks will be etched in our minds forever. When the ``devil incarnate'' hit the United States, he attacked not only America, but freedom-loving nations everywhere. We are going to need the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our global neighbors in order to wage the fight against terrorism. For it is a fight we must win, and will win. But there should be no mistake, victory will not come overnight. We are voting on this bill today because, as we continue to mourn the tremendous loss of life both of those in the air and on the ground, we also know that our transportation system must endure and must be secure if we are to move the Nation forward, and also ensure that we are in a position of strength to be able to wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And we cannot remain strong if we cannot remain mobile. Our goal was to restore the confidence of the American people in the aviation security system. I believe the measure before us will accomplish that goal. The fact of the matter is, if the flying public does not have confidence in the security, they will remain reluctant to fly, with severe long-term repercussions in the aviation sector and in our economy. Imposing stringent Federal control and oversight over airport security will go a long way to helping instill confidence in the flying public, and will enable the government to exercise much greater control over the quality of screening. We found common ground on a very complex issue, and I am pleased that both sides were able to come to agreement so quickly in the name of safety, to ensure that Americans have complete confidence in the men and women who form the last line of defense. In the end, we did come together--as we did on a resolution supporting the use of force to combat terrorism, as we did on legislation providing emergency funding for the recovery and relief effort after the September 11 attacks, as we did on a financial relief package for the airline industry, as we did on counter-terrorism legislation--to develop an agreement to address the gaps in aviation security and restore the confidence of the American people in our aviation system. So I urge all my colleagues to offer a strong show of support for this important legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in the last two months we have experienced a steep learning curve as a country and as a Congress in our efforts to improve homeland security. As we saw with the drafting of the airline security bill, the United States has not cornered the market on security innovations and measures; there is much we can learn from other countries that have faced or addressed the same challenges. For this reason, I am introducing legislation that would require the General Accounting Office to initiate a study examining the security measures that have worked for other regions and countries such as the European Union and Japan. For example, the $15 billion channel tunnel or Chunnel linking England to the European continent has been open to train service, for passengers and freight, since 1994 without a major security incident. In 2000 alone, 2.8 million cars, 7.1 million passengers, and 2.9 million tons of freight made the 31 mile journey under the English Channel safely. Security has always been a major concern for the Chunnel and that Britain, France, and Eurotunnel, the company operating the tunnel, have made security a top priority without degrading passenger service. In fact, in addition to its private security staff provided by Eurotunnel, the Chunnel is policed by a bi-national force of police, immigration, and customs officers with armed patrols in the British and French terminals. And both the company and the respective government agencies also conduct routine intelligence-led security checks on both passenger and freight vehicles. So I suspect that our friends in Europe, and in Asia, and other regions, may be able to provide valuable insight on how we can improve our rail transportation security. It is my intent with this bill to direct the General Accounting Office to complete, no later than January 2002, a study of rail transport security measures in other countries in an effort to seek innovative screening procedures and processes and other security measures that may be a benefit to the United States. Subsequently, an assessment of these measures would be provided to Congress. In the hours and days after September 11, Americans discovered we are not alone in this struggle and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that encourages the United States to reach out and learn from others.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime Security Advancement Act which is designed to mitigate the threat of maritime- and seaport-related terrorism. In the aftermath of the despicable terrorist attacks of September 11, I believe it is critical that we pass the strongest possible security enhancements to our transportation system and do so as soon as possible. To this end, we have been working to enhance aviation security, and for obvious reasons, this has been one of our first and highest priorities in the wake of the recent attacks. At the same time, we must also address concerns about highway safety, rail safety, pipeline safety, and maritime and seaport security. I support efforts to close the security gaps in each and every mode in the vast national and international transportation network that is so critical to our economy, our freedom, and our way of life. We are going to need the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our global neighbors in order to wage the war against terrorism. For it is a fight we must win, and will win. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today is to employ more tools in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, the Maritime Security Advancement Act would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in awarding loan guarantees, grants, and other forms of financial support for research and development under the discretionary authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to give preference to projects with the potential to reduce the threat of maritime- and seaport-related terrorism. For example, the legislation would promote the development of projects designed to increase the feasibility of securing cargo, sealing containers, and making cargo containers more tamper resistant; improve cargo container content labeling technologies; and provide for innovations in the physical handling of cargo in ways that could reduce the threat of terrorism aimed at our maritime transportation system. The bill would also direct the Secretary to identify the technologies with the potential to provide the greatest security with respect to handline, labeling, sealing, and transportation of cargo and report to Congress on its findings. And the bill authorizes the Secretary to issue new rules requiring deployment of such technologies and practices in an effort to enhance security and reduce the threat of terrorism. We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve the security of this nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we might both carry on the business of the Nation and ensure our continued economic viability, and also ensure that we are in good position of strength to be able to wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And we cannot remain strong if we cannot remain mobile. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in the last two months we have experienced a steep learning curve as a country and as a Congress in our efforts to improve homeland security. As we saw with the drafting of the airline security bill, the United States has not cornered the market on security innovations and measures; there is much we can learn from other countries that have faced or addressed the same challenges. For this reason, I am introducing legislation that would require the General Accounting Office to initiate a study examining the security measures that have worked for other regions and countries such as the European Union and Japan. For example, the $15 billion channel tunnel or Chunnel linking England to the European continent has been open to train service, for passengers and freight, since 1994 without a major security incident. In 2000 alone, 2.8 million cars, 7.1 million passengers, and 2.9 million tons of freight made the 31 mile journey under the English Channel safely. Security has always been a major concern for the Chunnel and that Britain, France, and Eurotunnel, the company operating the tunnel, have made security a top priority without degrading passenger service. In fact, in addition to its private security staff provided by Eurotunnel, the Chunnel is policed by a bi-national force of police, immigration, and customs officers with armed patrols in the British and French terminals. And both the company and the respective government agencies also conduct routine intelligence-led security checks on both passenger and freight vehicles. So I suspect that our friends in Europe, and in Asia, and other regions, may be able to provide valuable insight on how we can improve our rail transportation security. It is my intent with this bill to direct the General Accounting Office to complete, no later than January 2002, a study of rail transport security measures in other countries in an effort to seek innovative screening procedures and processes and other security measures that may be a benefit to the United States. Subsequently, an assessment of these measures would be provided to Congress. In the hours and days after September 11, Americans discovered we are not alone in this struggle and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that encourages the United States to reach out and learn from others.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime Security Advancement Act which is designed to mitigate the threat of maritime- and seaport-related terrorism. In the aftermath of the despicable terrorist attacks of September 11, I believe it is critical that we pass the strongest possible security enhancements to our transportation system and do so as soon as possible. To this end, we have been working to enhance aviation security, and for obvious reasons, this has been one of our first and highest priorities in the wake of the recent attacks. At the same time, we must also address concerns about highway safety, rail safety, pipeline safety, and maritime and seaport security. I support efforts to close the security gaps in each and every mode in the vast national and international transportation network that is so critical to our economy, our freedom, and our way of life. We are going to need the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our global neighbors in order to wage the war against terrorism. For it is a fight we must win, and will win. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today is to employ more tools in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, the Maritime Security Advancement Act would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in awarding loan guarantees, grants, and other forms of financial support for research and development under the discretionary authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to give preference to projects with the potential to reduce the threat of maritime- and seaport-related terrorism. For example, the legislation would promote the development of projects designed to increase the feasibility of securing cargo, sealing containers, and making cargo containers more tamper resistant; improve cargo container content labeling technologies; and provide for innovations in the physical handling of cargo in ways that could reduce the threat of terrorism aimed at our maritime transportation system. The bill would also direct the Secretary to identify the technologies with the potential to provide the greatest security with respect to handline, labeling, sealing, and transportation of cargo and report to Congress on its findings. And the bill authorizes the Secretary to issue new rules requiring deployment of such technologies and practices in an effort to enhance security and reduce the threat of terrorism. We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve the security of this nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we might both carry on the business of the Nation and ensure our continued economic viability, and also ensure that we are in good position of strength to be able to wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And we cannot remain strong if we cannot remain mobile. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.