Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I appreciate the time of the Senator from Indiana. I will defer and wait towards the end. I thank the Senator.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his leadership on an issue in which we share a mutual goal that we wish to advance and address in this Congress with respect to this legislation. I thank him for his commitment and persistence in bringing this to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate and in the Congress. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering today in conjunction with our colleagues is on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Senator Bayh and I have worked together since early March in addressing this issue, in which 11 of our colleagues have offered this legislation with us, to address the potential for ensuring that surplus projections are realized over the next 10 years with respect to this tax package, as well as all the other spending proposals that will be considered by this Congress and future Congresses. This legislation really came to us as a result of Chairman Greenspan's testimony back in January before the Senate Budget Committee. I think all of us understand--and Senator Bayh and I have had many conversations in this respect--that we want to ensure that our hard-fought effort to eliminate deficits and buying down the debt is not undone because our current surplus projections do not materialize in the future. That is why this amendment specifically will establish a trigger, based on the recommendations that were proposed by Chairman Greenspan, that links the tax cuts and spending increases to actual fiscal outcomes over the next 10 years. The bottom line is, it is absolutely imperative that we make tax relief and spending increases work, not only for American families but also for the future well-being of this country. We have a projection of $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the next 10 years. Those are projections that have been made by the Congressional Budget Office. We have an obligation to be responsible stewards of that surplus so we can address a variety of pressing national needs. We are setting aside money for prescription drugs, an issue just mentioned in this Chamber. We are setting aside money for education which we are also concurrently debating in the Senate. We are also setting aside money to bring down the debt over the next 10 years so we can reduce the debt and, indeed, eliminate the national debt. We are also setting aside all the surpluses that belong to the Social Security as well as the Medicare trust funds. We also understand that these burgeoning surpluses are predicated on certain assumptions upon which the tax cuts as well as our spending policies are being developed. We have no idea whether or not these surpluses are going to materialize over the next 10 years. While undoubtedly these projections are predicated on some very sound assumptions and the best available economic and budgetary estimates, the fact is they just happen to be estimates. Indeed, if the past is prologue, there is a 50-percent chance that CBO's projection of a surplus over the next 5 years will actually miss the mark by more than 1.8 percent of the GDP. That is $245 billion in the fifth year alone, with an estimated on-budget surplus in 2006 of over $276 billion which includes a surplus in the Medicare trust fund of $44 billion. The impact of such an error would be disastrous as Congress would be forced to dip into the Medicare surplus in that year alone, even absent any changes in tax and spending policies. It also bears noting, as it shows on this chart I have behind me of the 10-year projection, nearly two-thirds of the projected surplus will not accrue until after the fifth year. In fact, only $2 trillion, or 36 percent of the surplus, will accrue over the coming 5 years, while 64 percent of the surplus will materialize in the final 5 years. So if surpluses prove to be substantially lower in the fifth year alone, the impact on subsequent years will likewise be substantial. Any long-term cuts in spending policies premised on the higher estimates could quickly force us to use our Social Security surpluses, put our budget back in the red, or use Medicare surpluses, all of which are not options available to this Congress or future Congresses. That is why we came to this point in terms of developing a trigger mechanism: How best do we address this problem in a most prudent fashion. That is why I commend the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Michigan, who is here, an ardent supporter of making sure we adhere to these surpluses and these projections over the next 10 years, as any State in the country has to do with their constitutional amendments to balance the budget. In fact, many of us have been ardent supporters of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We did so and thought so because we knew we had to adhere to a bottom line. So our principle is very simple. We are saying that in the years 2004 and 2006, we will have to take a window, we will have to look at whether or not we are adhering to our debt reduction goals. In the event the Secretary of the Treasury indicates that we will not meet those goals in the years 2005 and 2007, then Congress obviously will have to take immediate action to cut back, to stop the next phase of the tax cut or the next phase of spending increases over the rate of inflation. We have laid out the debt targets. They are laid out in this amendment, according to the Congressional Budget Office economic outlook. We make sure we have the ability to respond to the Secretary of the Treasury's report that will be made initially in July and then immediately after Labor Day on the status of our progress towards achieving this debt reduction goal for the year. If the Secretary reports that the goal will not be met, Congress will then know, very clearly, that steps must be taken to get us back on track. As I said, if the debt targets are not met in the years 2005 and 2007, the scheduled phase-in of the new tax cuts and the mandatory spending, which is additional mandatory spending, new phased-in discretionary spending above the rate of inflation will be delayed for 1 year or until the target is met in future years. In all of the other years in this 10-year window, we will have what is called the midcourse correction review. Again, it will give us the opportunity to analyze our progress made towards debt reduction, ensuring that we are still on track each and every year for the specified targets that will be laid out in this amendment, the ones that have been established in the Congressional Budget Office report for each and every year. In the event that any Member of the House or Senate chooses to raise a privileged motion to address the spending for the next year or mandatory spending or the new tax cuts, they will have a privileged resolution on the floor of the House for consideration. And amendments can be offered to adjust, during the course of the midcourse correction review, the tax cut and spending that would be adjusted. Any subsequent amendment of that kind would have to be proportionate so that it could not be adjusted just from the tax cut side of the equation or just from spending alone. We think this is an effective mechanism because it gives us an opportunity to be able to analyze, as any business does in this country, any family does, any State that has to abide by its constitutional requirements to balance the budget, as to whether or not we are proceeding on track with the surpluses, with these projections, and with the debt reduction. It will give us the opportunity in 2 of the years over the next 10 years for an automatic trigger in which we will have the opportunity to respond to the next phase-in of a tax cut or new spending policies. It is not a retroactive tax increase, as many have said. We are not going to be doing anything retroactive either with respect to spending or with tax cuts. It would all be prospective. It gives us an ability to look forward to make sure we are being prudent so we do not repeat the past with respect to deficits in accruing the kind of national debt that has been a burden to this country. As I said, I hope my colleagues who worked so hard over the years for the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will see this as an effort to maintain similar fiscal responsibility. We cannot afford to see the hard work that went into reaching the desired goal of balancing the budget that we have made a reality today be undone by the adoption of either tax or spending policies that are allowed to move forward unchecked. For those who believe that the assumptions on which this budget and this specific tax bill are based are sound, the trigger poses no threat as it would never be turned on. May I ask the Senator for additional time?

Ms. SNOWE. If there is no objection.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her consideration. I address several of the issues raised by the ranking member, Senator Baucus, with respect to this trigger mechanism. I think they are important issues. I remember so often during my 16 years in the House of Representatives where we had to have a vote every year to raise the debt ceiling before we could move further in additional spending. I can also recall the number of times that was postponed. I am not suggesting that is what we should do. The Secretary of the Treasury has considerable flexibility. In fact, we have these established debt reduction targets, ones that come out from the CBO. They are targets to be adhered to by the Secretary of the Treasury and give the flexibility to reduce further debt and be able to redeem that debt and also, in the mid-course correction, it gives Members the ability to raise the issues. But it would be upon a vote of the House and the Senate before any other changes could occur. This does provide a measure of certainty that is very critical to ensure we stay on track. That is what a balanced budget is all about. We make the adjustments each and every year. I hope we intend to make those adjustments each and every year in the event our debt reductions are not met. That is what this trigger is all about. Mr. President, the bottom line is that we need to make tax relief and spending increases work--not only for American families, but for the future economic health and well-being of this nation. With a $5.6 trillion surplus projected by CBO for the next ten years, we have an obligation to be responsible stewards of that surplus, so that we can seize the opportunity to address a variety of pressing national needs like buying-down the debt, increasing funding for shared priorities like education and health care, and providing meaningful tax relief as this tax bill provides. At the same time, we need to be sure that the burgeoning surplus assumptions on which our tax cut and spending decisions are made actually materialize--not disappear as quickly as they materialized. Because while the projected surplus is undoubtedly based on the best available economic and budget estimates, they are still just that-- estimates. Indeed, if past is prologue, there is a 50 percent chance that CBO's projection of the surplus only five years from now will miss the actual mark by more than 1.8 percent of GDP--that's $245 billion in the fifth year alone. With an estimated on-budget surplus in 2006 of only $267 billion--which includes a surplus in the Medicare HI Trust Fund of $44 billion--the impact of such an error would be disastrous, as Congress would be forced to dip into the Medicare surplus in that year alone, even absent any changes in tax or spending policies today. It also bears noting that for the ten year projections, nearly two- thirds of the projected surplus will not accrue until after the fifth year. In fact, only $2 trillion--or 36 percent--of the surplus will accrue over the coming five years, while 64 percent--or $3.6 trillion-- will materialize in the final five years. If surpluses prove to be substantially lower in the fifth year alone, the impact on subsequent years would likewise be substantial--and any long-term tax cuts and spending increases premised on the higher estimates could quickly force us to use Social Security surplus or even put the budget back ``in the red.'' Given CBO's acknowledged potential for error--and the devastating impact it would have on our surpluses--I believe we should follow the advice that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave the Budget Committee on January 25. Specifically, Chairman Greenspan stated: In recognition of the uncertainties in the economic and budget outlook, it is important that any long-term tax plan, or spending initiative for that matter, be phased in. Conceivably, it could include provisions that, in some way, would limit surplus-reducing actions if specified targets for the budget surplus and federal debt were not satisfied. In fact, in response to Chairman Greenspan's recommendation, I joined Senator Bayh, Senator Torricelli, and eight other bipartisan colleagues in crafting and introducing a bipartisan resolution that outlined the principles of a ``trigger'' mechanism that would be based on Chairman Greenspan's advice. Specifically, our principles included the fact that, pursuant to Chairman Greenspan's advice, tax cuts and spending increases adopted during the 107th Congress should include a trigger mechanism that links the phase-in of these proposals to actual fiscal outcomes. Furthermore, we stated that the trigger should outline specific legislative or automatic actions that shall be taken if specific levels of public debt reduction are not achieved, and should only be applied prospectively-- not repeal or cancel any previously implemented portion of a tax cut or spending increase. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering today turns those bipartisan principles into an actual legislative mechanism. Specifically, it creates an automatic trigger mechanism that links the phase-in of new tax cuts and new spending to debt reduction goals in 2004 and 2006. In addition, it includes a ``Mid-Course Correction'' mechanism that ensures the Congress has both an incentive--and an expedited means--to get back on track during all other years in which the debt reduction targets are missed. First, the amendment lays out debt targets that must be achieved at the close of upcoming fiscal years. These targets--which are taken directly from CBO's ``Budget and Economic Outlook'' report issued in January--assume that the Social Security and Medicare HI Trust Fund surpluses are used for debt reduction. Besides laying out debt targets for the end of each fiscal year, it also requires that the Secretary of the Treasury make additional reports to the Congress--on both July 1 and the first Tuesday after Labor Day (when Congress returns from the August recess)--on the status of our progress toward achieving the debt reduction goal for the year. If the Secretary of the Treasury reports that the goal will not be met, Congress will know that steps must be taken to get back on track. Next, the amendment creates the automatic ``trigger'' that links the phase-in of tax cuts, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending to the achievement of the debt reduction goals in 2004 and 2006. If the debt targets are not met, then--at the start of the following fiscal year (2005 or 2007)--the scheduled phase-in of tax cuts would be delayed for one year, or until the target is met in a future year. Of importance, this tax trigger--if implemented--would in no way lead to a tax increase. Rather, it would simply delay the next scheduled phase-in of any tax cuts that included a phase-in during those years. In the same manner, the phase-in of new mandatory spending programs would be delayed, with no impact on any provision that had already been implemented. [Of note, based on the package before us, the tax cuts that would be affected by the trigger would include the phase-in of marginal rate reductions (2005 and 2007); the per child tax credit (2007); marriage penalty relief (2007); and estate tax rate relief (2007). Because no new mandatory spending programs have been enacted this year, there would be no impact on such programs--at least at this time.] In addition, the trigger would hold discretionary spending at the level of the previous year, adjusted for no more than the rate of inflation. Why allow for growth with inflation? Put simply, these programs-- which include education, defense, and health--are funded on an annual basis. In contrast, mandatory spending--such as the Social Security and Medicare programs--is not controlled on an annual basis and can fluctuate from year-to-year depending on how many individuals are eligible for the program, the rate of inflation, and other factors. When considering the critical importance of many discretionary spending programs, we should ensure that these programs are treated no worse than mandatory spending. By simply allowing them to grow with inflation, we are at least ensuring that the benefit of these programs is not eroded simply due to a rise in the cost of living. Ultimatley, if the combined impact of stopping the phase-in of tax cuts and mandatory spending, and of holding discretionary spending to the rate of inflation, is more than is necessary for meeting the debt reduction goal, the impact can be mitigated through the consideration of legislation that would lessen the impact. To ensure that tax cuts and spending are treated equally, such legislation must increase tax cuts and overall spending in a proportionate manner, and any amendments to the legislation must maintain this balance. The amendment also includes a ``Mid-Course Correction'' mechanism that would be available to the Congress in all other years that the debt reduction targets are not met. Specifically, if the debt reduction target is not met at the end of a fiscal year--or the Treasury Secretary reports in July or September that the debt reduction target will likely not be met--any member of the House or Senate would have the ability to call up privileged legislation that would immediately block all scheduled phase-ins of tax cuts and new mandatory spending for the coming year, and hold overall discretionary spending at the rate of inflation over the previous year's funding level. During the floor consideration of the legislation, amendments could be offered to adjust the impact of the Mid-Course Correction legislation if it would generate more savings than are necessary, but such amendments must affect tax cuts and overall spending in a proportionate manner. Ultimately, it will be up to the Congress and the President to decide if Mid-Course Correction legislation will be passed and enacted--and it will also be on their shoulders to explain why they did not act in the face of debt reduction targets not being achieved. Ultimately, if Congress continually ignores violations of the debt reduction targets during these years, the automatic ``trigger'' in years 2005 and 2007 will almost inevitably be enforced. As with the Mid-Course Correction, this amendment also allows provides for the consideration of privileged legislation that would make adjustments to the automatic trigger if its impact would be more severe than is necessary. In the same manner, amendments to adjust the trigger's impact would need to ensure that a proportionate balance is retained between tax cuts and spending. In response to concerns that a trigger may actually lead to tax cuts and spending being turned off at the ``wrong time''--such as during an economic downturn or national emergency--the amendment would allow the House and Senate to waive the trigger with a three-fifths vote at any time, just as the requirements of the Balanced Budget Amendment would have been waived with a supermajority vote. And if we are actually in the throes of a recession or a declaration of war is in effect, the trigger would be waived with a mere majority vote--a margin that would be easily attainable. Finally, in deference to the fact that there are legitimate differences of opinion about how quickly the publicly held debt can be redeemed, the amendment allows the debt targets to be adjusted in a given year if the Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the target cannot be reached because the Department of the Treasury will be unable to redeem a sufficient amount of securities from holders of federal debt to achieve the target. Of note, such certification--which must be transmitted by the President to the Congress--must outline the specific reasons that the targets cannot be achieved, and the estimated amount of ``excess reserves'' that will accumulate due to an inability of the Treasury to redeem federal debt. Under no circumstances would such a waiver be allowed if the reason for the shortfall is simply a lack of surplus revenues being available to redeem federal debt. And to ensure that ``checks and balances'' are maintained, Congress can override the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury with a majority vote. Mr. President, just as the tax bill is the type of ``insurance'' that Chairman Greenspan recommended to lessen the impact of an economic downturn, I believe this amendment would serve as a critically needed ``insurance plan'' within this tax bill and in subsequent spending legislation. While I believe the surplus estimates on which our budget and this tax bill are based are sound, we simply cannot take the chance that our estimates will prove to be wrong or that future Congresses will over-utilize the surplus and imperil debt reduction. Furthermore, I would hope that my colleagues who worked so hard over the years for the passage of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would see this as a similar effort to maintain fiscal responsibility. We simply cannot afford to see the hard work that went into making the desired goal of the Balanced Budget Amendment a reality today be undone by the adoption of tax or spending policies that are allowed to move forward un-checked. Ironically, for those who believe that the assumptions on which the budget and this tax bill are based are sound, the trigger poses no threat as it would never be turned on. Likewise, for those who are concerned about the assumptions, there is every reason to support the trigger as it would serve as a strong line of fiscal defense if today's surplus estimates prove to be tomorrow's ``pipe dream.'' Nevertheless, I'm sure that some of my colleagues will simply argue that triggers are doomed to failure, and cite the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit control mechanism as a case in point. I would argue that although some may dispute the value of the trigger, arguing that Gramm- Rudman-Hollings may not have been successful at reigning in deficits, it did serve as a strong incentive for Congress to control spending. In fact, discretionary spending grew at an average annual rate of eight percent leading up to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and only two percent in the five years after. The bottom line is that I can't think of any event that has ever had such a profound impact on congressional spending--short of the watershed Congressional elections of 1994--and I believe that this trigger could have the same profound impact both tax cuts and spending during the coming 10 years. Mr. President, this amendment is just the type of fiscally responsible proposal that I believe the American people are hoping we in the Congress will embrace as we pursue tax cuts and spending increases in the months ahead, and I urge my colleagues to support it accordingly.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the Access to Cancer Therapies Act, would provide coverage of all oral anticancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Rockefeller, Gordon Smith, and Feinstein in introducing this measure. As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs. This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drugs are, not only now but even more so in the future. Eight years ago, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs, but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 95 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But in the near future as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered. In fact, this is already happening. Today, there are about 40 oral anti-cancer drugs, but less than 10 are reimbursed by Medicare. For example, one of the most common drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, tamoxifen, is among the drugs not currently reimbursed by Medicare. As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill afford. Let me provide one very exciting example of an oral anti-cancer drug that illustrates both the urgency of this policy change and of enacting a Medicare prescription drug bill. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration approved a compound known as STI-571. Also known by its brand name Gleevec, this medication was approved in a record setting two and one-half months. Gleevec is used to treat one kind of leukemia and may also be effective against a rare but lethal stomach cancer. Gleevec is the first, let me repeat, first, cancer drug to specifically address a molecular target which is not only in the cancer, but actually the cause of the cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. More precisely, Gleevec knocks out a specific enzyme needed for the cancer to thrive. By contrast, most current cancer therapies act like a shotgun, killing both cancer and normal cells. Moreover, Gleevec is among the first fruits of three decades of research into the basic biology of cancer. But Gleevec is not a cure, it simply arrests the cancer and returns most lab tests to normal. Patients may need to take the drug for life. And treatment is not cheap--a month's supply of Gleevec costs upwards of $2,400. While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer. At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The Act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a small bill, but one with important consequences. My measure, the Access to Cancer Therapies Act, would provide coverage of all oral anticancer drugs under the Medicare program. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Rockefeller, Gordon Smith, and Feinstein in introducing this measure. As my colleagues know, there is no Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit today. If there was, we would not need this legislation. There should be and there must be a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses, and they can't defer their illnesses or their costs. This legislation also reminds us of how crucial prescription drugs are, not only now but even more so in the future. Eight years ago, Congress created a unique Medicare drug benefit for oral anti-cancer drugs, but only if the drug is equivalent to drugs provided ``incident'' to a physician visit; for example, drugs that must be injected. At present, upwards of 95 percent of cancer drug therapy is covered by Medicare either in a physician office or in a reimbursed oral form. But in the near future as much as 25 percent of cancer drug therapy will be in the form of oral drugs that are not currently covered. In fact, this is already happening. Today, there are about 40 oral anti-cancer drugs, but less than 10 are reimbursed by Medicare. For example, one of the most common drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer, tamoxifen, is among the drugs not currently reimbursed by Medicare. As cancer therapy moves more toward reliance on oral drugs, Medicare coverage policy must be updated to cover the new therapies, or else even the intent of this very limited policy will be meaningless and Medicare beneficiaries will increasingly lose access to the best cancer therapies. And without this legislative change, beneficiaries will increasingly bear the burden of buying these drugs from their own pockets, which most seniors can ill afford. Let me provide one very exciting example of an oral anti-cancer drug that illustrates both the urgency of this policy change and of enacting a Medicare prescription drug bill. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration approved a compound known as STI-571. Also known by its brand name Gleevec, this medication was approved in a record setting two and one-half months. Gleevec is used to treat one kind of leukemia and may also be effective against a rare but lethal stomach cancer. Gleevec is the first, let me repeat, first, cancer drug to specifically address a molecular target which is not only in the cancer, but actually the cause of the cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute. More precisely, Gleevec knocks out a specific enzyme needed for the cancer to thrive. By contrast, most current cancer therapies act like a shotgun, killing both cancer and normal cells. Moreover, Gleevec is among the first fruits of three decades of research into the basic biology of cancer. But Gleevec is not a cure, it simply arrests the cancer and returns most lab tests to normal. Patients may need to take the drug for life. And treatment is not cheap--a month's supply of Gleevec costs upwards of $2,400. While biomedical research is providing new, more targeted, and less toxic methods of treatment through new oral anti-cancer drugs that patients can safely take in the comfort of their own homes, Medicare policy is currently unable to provide reliable access to these medications for beneficiaries with cancer. At the very least, we must ensure all oral anti-cancer drugs are available to our seniors. The Access to Cancer Therapies Act will build on current Medicare policy by ensuring coverage of all anti-cancer drugs, whether oral or injectable, are available to Medicare beneficiaries. The Act will provide beneficiaries with access to innovative new therapies that are less toxic and more convenient, more clinically effective and more cost-effective than many currently covered treatment options. I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi/Snowe school construction amendment. I want to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi for working with me to provide some much federal assistance to states to address serious school construction need. And I appreciate his interest in including a part of my bill, the ``Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools, BRICKS, Act'' in this amendment. The amendment before us would provide funding for Impact Aid schools, provide a direct grant to states to provide for the construction needs of their poorest schools and creates a revolving loan fund for school construction. The condition of many of our Nation's existing public schools is abysmal even as the need for additional schools and classroom space grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the General Accounting Office, GAO, in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement. As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980. Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008. Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office, GAO, it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent report by the NEA identified $322 billion in unmet school modernization needs. Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, where a 1996 study by the Maine Department of Education and the State Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the state's school building and construction needs stood at $637 million. We simply cannot allow our Nation's schools to fall into utter disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in classrooms that have leaky ceilings or rotting walls. We cannot ignore the need for new schools as the record number of children enrolled in K-12 schools continues to grow. Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments can bear in a short period of time, I believe the Federal Government can and should assist Maine and other State and local governments in addressing this growing national crisis. Admittedly, not all members support strong Federal intervention in what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for school construction or other local educational needs would be for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when the Individuals with Disabilities Education, IDEA, Act was signed into law more than 20 years ago, but the Federal Government has fallen woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently increasing its share above 10 percent. Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the Federal Government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senators Hagel and Jeffords to fully fund IDEA, and I support ongoing efforts to achieve the 40 percent federal commitment in the near future. Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and thereby free-up local resources to address local needs, I believe the Federal Government can and should provide some assistance to state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control. And that is why our amendment is narrowly drawn. First, our legislation will ensure that we meet the federal commitment to Impact Aid schools, which provide education to communities serving our military families and those where the Federal Government owns a substantial share of the property, thereby depriving the community of local revenue. The amendment also provides a direct grant to states to assist in building or rehabilitating the lowest income schools. In addition, there is a provision based on my school construction bill, BRICKS, that would set aside 20 percent of the Federal money appropriated for school construction for a Federal revolving loan fund for states that meet the Title I small State minimum allocation. These 14 States, which receive a de minimus amount of money under the Title I program, would be eligible for funding that could be used to fund their state revolving loan funds, pay interest owed on construction bonds and for other state authorized school construction activities. Of importance, these loan monies, which will be distributed on an annual basis using the Title I distribution formula, will become available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the Federal loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have occurred in the absence of the loans. And to encourage the Federal Government to meet its funding commitment for IDEA, and to compensate states for the fact that every dollar in foregone IDEA funding is a dollar less that they have for school construction or other local needs, our amendment would impose no interest on BRICKS loans during the first five years provided the 40 percent funding commitment is not met. Thereafter, the interest rate is pegged to the federal share of IDEA: zero in any year that the federal government fails to fund at least 20 percent of the cost of IDEA; 2.5 percent, the long-term projected inflation rate, in years that the Federal share falls between 20 and 30 percent; 3.5 percent in years the Federal share is 30 to 40 percent; and 4.5 percent in years the full 40 percent share is achieved. Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school construction, renovation, and repair. This afternoon the choice we have on school construction is philosophical. We can provide assistance to states to address the needs of their poorest schools, which is what the Enzi/Snowe amendment does. My colleague Senator Harkin's approach seeks to provide a piece of the proverbial pie to all schools. But the size of the problem and the piece of the pie, I think they would be so thinly cut that a mere mouthful would be all that was offered. Better to consolidate our efforts on the very neediest so that the Federal assistance will make a difference. By providing assistance to states to address their most pressing school construction needs, I believe our amendment provides important assistance to help address a national problem. Our children need a safe, clean and healthy environment in which to learn. I urge that my colleagues support the Enzi/Snowe amendment legislation that will make a tangible difference in the condition of America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Illness Non-Discrimination Act with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry. In brief, my bill would a correct a serious disparity in payment for treatment of mental disorders under Medicare law. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent coinsurance for most outpatient services, including doctor's visits. Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But for treatment of mental disorders, Medicare law requires patients pay 50-percent coinsurance. Under my bill, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness would pay the same 20 percent coinsurance required of Medicare patients seeking treatment for any other illnesses. Let's look at this issue in another way. If a Medicare patient has an office visit for treatment for cancer or heart disease, the patient is responsible for 20 percent of the doctor's fee. But if a Medicare patient has an office visit with a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional for treatment for depression, schizophrenia, or any other condition diagnosed as a mental illness, the co-insurance for the outpatient visit for treatment of the mental illness is 50 percent. What sense does this make? Indeed, my bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction between physical and mental disorders, and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all conditions. Perhaps this disparity would matter less if mental disorders were not so prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. The importance of access to treatment for mental disorders is emphasized in a landmark report on mental health released by the Surgeon General in 1999. The Surgeon General reported mental illness was second only to cardiovascular diseases in years of healthy life lost to either premature death or disability. And the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread. Upwards of 20 percent of older adults in the community and an even higher percentage in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression. Older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases will age. Untreated depression among the elderly substantially increases the risk of death by suicide. There is another sad irony. While Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, Medicare also provides health insurance coverage for people with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, at the same time, Medicare pays less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than if they had a non-mental disorder. But there is also the very good news that there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illnesses. With proper treatment, the majority of people with a mental illness can lead productive lives. Yet because of fears of stigma and a lack of understanding of mental disorders, too often mental disorders go untreated. Our payment policies should not provide another barrier to access to care. I urge my colleagues to join with me to bring Medicare payment policy for mental disorders into the 21st century.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Illness Non-Discrimination Act with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator John Kerry. In brief, my bill would a correct a serious disparity in payment for treatment of mental disorders under Medicare law. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent coinsurance for most outpatient services, including doctor's visits. Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But for treatment of mental disorders, Medicare law requires patients pay 50-percent coinsurance. Under my bill, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness would pay the same 20 percent coinsurance required of Medicare patients seeking treatment for any other illnesses. Let's look at this issue in another way. If a Medicare patient has an office visit for treatment for cancer or heart disease, the patient is responsible for 20 percent of the doctor's fee. But if a Medicare patient has an office visit with a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional for treatment for depression, schizophrenia, or any other condition diagnosed as a mental illness, the co-insurance for the outpatient visit for treatment of the mental illness is 50 percent. What sense does this make? Indeed, my bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction between physical and mental disorders, and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all conditions. Perhaps this disparity would matter less if mental disorders were not so prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise. The importance of access to treatment for mental disorders is emphasized in a landmark report on mental health released by the Surgeon General in 1999. The Surgeon General reported mental illness was second only to cardiovascular diseases in years of healthy life lost to either premature death or disability. And the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread. Upwards of 20 percent of older adults in the community and an even higher percentage in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression. Older Americans have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases will age. Untreated depression among the elderly substantially increases the risk of death by suicide. There is another sad irony. While Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65, Medicare also provides health insurance coverage for people with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, at the same time, Medicare pays less for critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than if they had a non-mental disorder. But there is also the very good news that there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illnesses. With proper treatment, the majority of people with a mental illness can lead productive lives. Yet because of fears of stigma and a lack of understanding of mental disorders, too often mental disorders go untreated. Our payment policies should not provide another barrier to access to care. I urge my colleagues to join with me to bring Medicare payment policy for mental disorders into the 21st century.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Tax Credit Expansion and Equity Act of 2001, with my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and our other cosponsors Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Collins. This legislation would take an important first step towards helping those children who are most in need, by expanding the current Child Tax Credit and making its benefits more equitable. That I am here today introducing this bill is due in large part to the efforts of two other people. Thanks to the President's initiative to double the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This effort has opened the door to addressing the cost borne by the parents in our society as they raise their children. Of course, there is a larger cost than just the monetary expense incurred in taking care of and raising children. However, what better way can we acknowledge this cost, and lessen parents' burden than to increase the child tax credit. My good friend, and colleague, Representative Connie Morella, from Maryland, recognized this and began an effort in the House of Representatives to address the current child tax credit inequity. I thank her for all of her good work and am happy to be able to work with her from this side of the Capitol to see that this issue is properly addressed. The President's proposal, while an important first step, doesn't do enough to help those who need it the most--our low and middle income families. But make no mistake it is thanks to the President's opening the door to the Child Tax Credit that we are here today to take that effort one step further and make this credit partially refundable. There are over 16 million children in poverty, 1 in every 4, whose families have no federal tax liability and therefore will receive no benefit from an increase in the child tax credit because it's not refundable. More than two-thirds of these children are in working families. There are an additional 7 million children who live in families that will not benefit from an increase in the child tax credit unless it's refundable due to their limited tax liability because they do not pay enough in federal taxes to get a $500 credit. Yet, these families pay taxes. They pay federal and state taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and other taxes. Overwhelmingly, they represent working families. They have no federal tax liability and therefore without this change to the child tax credit they will receive no benefit from an increased child tax credit. There may be some who will say that unless you can do it all don't do any of it. There are some who will say that only a fully refundable credit is acceptable. However, I respectfully disagree. I have served in Congress for over two decades and I have learned that you should never pass up the opportunity to make a difference. I have long made improving the lives of our children a priority. The Child Tax Credit Expansion and Equity Act, would expand the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 as proposed by the President, but it would make the first $500 refundable. Families which would otherwise receive nothing, would have a $500 refundable credit to help mitigate the costs of raising their children today. This bill just makes good sense. It makes sense that every family with children should be eligible for the child tax credit. It makes good sense to expand the number of families that qualify for the credit instead of just giving more money to those families that already benefit. It makes good sense and it does so in a simple and fair way. It does not create another complicated tax form. The amount of the credit is based on the number of dependents, period. It fits into the current tax code and doesn't require a complex calculation or a degree in accounting. This is good public policy. If timing is everything, then this is the time to do this for some of our most needy families. America today is prosperous, healthy and strong. And yet, too many of our children, our most vulnerable of citizens are in need of assistance. When the federal government is expecting the largest surplus ever, shouldn't we make an investment in our future and help those who need it most. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and work with me and the cosponsors to ensure that the child tax credit is assisting the most children possible.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut Senator Lieberman, to introduce a bill that will promote the expanded use of an environmentally sound and efficient energy technology, fuel cell power. We all agree with President Bush that we have a crisis situation, America's energy future is bleak. Portions of our country are experiencing rolling blackouts, fuel prices are skyrocketing, America's dependence on imported oil reached a new high of over 60 percent in recent months, and our search for additional fossil fuels threatens the sanctity of protected wilderness areas. Now is the time to promote long term solutions such as fuel cell technology to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and maintain a steady supply of energy. Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream, every manned U.S. space mission has relied upon fuel cells for electricity and drinking water. From a New York city police station to a postal facility in Alaska to hospitals, schools, banks, military installations, and manufacturing facilities around the world, fuel cell units are efficiently generating dependable power 24 hours a day, seven days a week for upwards of 5 years with only routine maintenance. Fuel cell technology offers a clean, secure, efficient, and dependable source of energy that should be part of our national energy strategy. Not only do fuel cells deliver the high quality, reliable power that is considered an absolute necessity for many portions of our society, they reduce power grid demand while improving grid flexibility. Fuel cells are an ideal energy source to address America's pressing energy needs. Using an electro-chemical reaction to convert energy from hydrogen- rich fuel sources into electricity, fuel cells reduce the need for fossil fuel consumption. And, since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce virtually no air pollution and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, a 200 kilowatt fuel cell power plant produces less than one ounce of pollutants for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity it yields. In comparison, the average American fossil fuel plant produces nearly 25 pounds of pollutants to generate the same 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. That is 400 times the amount of the fuel cell power plant. However, it is difficult for consumers to take advantage of fuel cells because as with any new technology, the introductory price is high. To create the market incentives necessary to speed the commercialization of this technology, our legislation provides a $1,000 per kilowatt stationary fuel cell tax credit for power plants that have an electrical generation efficiency of 30 percent or higher. By lowering the initial price for consumers, market introduction and production volume of fuel cells will be accelerated with the end result being a significant reduction in manufacturing costs. The decrease in price would enable even more consumers to use the one of the cleanest, most reliable and most efficient means to generate electricity. This fuel cell tax credit is designed to benefit the widest range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers with a meaningful incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial use while minimizing the budget impact to $500 million over the 5-year life of the program. I hope my colleagues will agree that an annual cost of $100 million is a small price to pay for a reliable source of power that will benefit the environment and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies. At a time when power shortages and interruptions are becoming more prevalent, we must increase our investment and commitment to non- traditional energy sources such as fuel cells. The reliable, combustion-free power fuel cells provide is a sensible alternative that is available today. I urge my colleagues to support us in the Fuel Cell Tax Credit.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut Senator Lieberman, to introduce a bill that will promote the expanded use of an environmentally sound and efficient energy technology, fuel cell power. We all agree with President Bush that we have a crisis situation, America's energy future is bleak. Portions of our country are experiencing rolling blackouts, fuel prices are skyrocketing, America's dependence on imported oil reached a new high of over 60 percent in recent months, and our search for additional fossil fuels threatens the sanctity of protected wilderness areas. Now is the time to promote long term solutions such as fuel cell technology to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and maintain a steady supply of energy. Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream, every manned U.S. space mission has relied upon fuel cells for electricity and drinking water. From a New York city police station to a postal facility in Alaska to hospitals, schools, banks, military installations, and manufacturing facilities around the world, fuel cell units are efficiently generating dependable power 24 hours a day, seven days a week for upwards of 5 years with only routine maintenance. Fuel cell technology offers a clean, secure, efficient, and dependable source of energy that should be part of our national energy strategy. Not only do fuel cells deliver the high quality, reliable power that is considered an absolute necessity for many portions of our society, they reduce power grid demand while improving grid flexibility. Fuel cells are an ideal energy source to address America's pressing energy needs. Using an electro-chemical reaction to convert energy from hydrogen- rich fuel sources into electricity, fuel cells reduce the need for fossil fuel consumption. And, since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce virtually no air pollution and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, a 200 kilowatt fuel cell power plant produces less than one ounce of pollutants for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity it yields. In comparison, the average American fossil fuel plant produces nearly 25 pounds of pollutants to generate the same 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. That is 400 times the amount of the fuel cell power plant. However, it is difficult for consumers to take advantage of fuel cells because as with any new technology, the introductory price is high. To create the market incentives necessary to speed the commercialization of this technology, our legislation provides a $1,000 per kilowatt stationary fuel cell tax credit for power plants that have an electrical generation efficiency of 30 percent or higher. By lowering the initial price for consumers, market introduction and production volume of fuel cells will be accelerated with the end result being a significant reduction in manufacturing costs. The decrease in price would enable even more consumers to use the one of the cleanest, most reliable and most efficient means to generate electricity. This fuel cell tax credit is designed to benefit the widest range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers with a meaningful incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial use while minimizing the budget impact to $500 million over the 5-year life of the program. I hope my colleagues will agree that an annual cost of $100 million is a small price to pay for a reliable source of power that will benefit the environment and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies. At a time when power shortages and interruptions are becoming more prevalent, we must increase our investment and commitment to non- traditional energy sources such as fuel cells. The reliable, combustion-free power fuel cells provide is a sensible alternative that is available today. I urge my colleagues to support us in the Fuel Cell Tax Credit.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Tax Credit Expansion and Equity Act of 2001, with my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and our other cosponsors Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Collins. This legislation would take an important first step towards helping those children who are most in need, by expanding the current Child Tax Credit and making its benefits more equitable. That I am here today introducing this bill is due in large part to the efforts of two other people. Thanks to the President's initiative to double the current child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This effort has opened the door to addressing the cost borne by the parents in our society as they raise their children. Of course, there is a larger cost than just the monetary expense incurred in taking care of and raising children. However, what better way can we acknowledge this cost, and lessen parents' burden than to increase the child tax credit. My good friend, and colleague, Representative Connie Morella, from Maryland, recognized this and began an effort in the House of Representatives to address the current child tax credit inequity. I thank her for all of her good work and am happy to be able to work with her from this side of the Capitol to see that this issue is properly addressed. The President's proposal, while an important first step, doesn't do enough to help those who need it the most--our low and middle income families. But make no mistake it is thanks to the President's opening the door to the Child Tax Credit that we are here today to take that effort one step further and make this credit partially refundable. There are over 16 million children in poverty, 1 in every 4, whose families have no federal tax liability and therefore will receive no benefit from an increase in the child tax credit because it's not refundable. More than two-thirds of these children are in working families. There are an additional 7 million children who live in families that will not benefit from an increase in the child tax credit unless it's refundable due to their limited tax liability because they do not pay enough in federal taxes to get a $500 credit. Yet, these families pay taxes. They pay federal and state taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, sales taxes, property taxes and other taxes. Overwhelmingly, they represent working families. They have no federal tax liability and therefore without this change to the child tax credit they will receive no benefit from an increased child tax credit. There may be some who will say that unless you can do it all don't do any of it. There are some who will say that only a fully refundable credit is acceptable. However, I respectfully disagree. I have served in Congress for over two decades and I have learned that you should never pass up the opportunity to make a difference. I have long made improving the lives of our children a priority. The Child Tax Credit Expansion and Equity Act, would expand the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 as proposed by the President, but it would make the first $500 refundable. Families which would otherwise receive nothing, would have a $500 refundable credit to help mitigate the costs of raising their children today. This bill just makes good sense. It makes sense that every family with children should be eligible for the child tax credit. It makes good sense to expand the number of families that qualify for the credit instead of just giving more money to those families that already benefit. It makes good sense and it does so in a simple and fair way. It does not create another complicated tax form. The amount of the credit is based on the number of dependents, period. It fits into the current tax code and doesn't require a complex calculation or a degree in accounting. This is good public policy. If timing is everything, then this is the time to do this for some of our most needy families. America today is prosperous, healthy and strong. And yet, too many of our children, our most vulnerable of citizens are in need of assistance. When the federal government is expecting the largest surplus ever, shouldn't we make an investment in our future and help those who need it most. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and work with me and the cosponsors to ensure that the child tax credit is assisting the most children possible.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee for his consideration and cooperation in this very important matter as well as the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Majority Leader for bringing this issue to my colleague's attention. The Senate version reinforces the President's budget blueprint for advance appropriations as a full funding mechanism that can be used by various departments, such as the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Defense, and agencies, such as NASA, to level fund capital projects. Without this valuable tool, the ability of Congress to budget the federal government's capital investment projects will be severely restricted. I most strongly concur with my esteemed colleagues that the Senate version must be sustained in conference.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks an historic occasion for the Senate. At the end of this fiscal year, not only will the federal government have run a balanced budget without the use of the Social Security surplus for a third consecutive year, the first time that has happened since 1947 to 1949--but the budget resolution we are now considering would reduce the publicly-held debt to its lowest level since World War I. No longer is business in Washington defined by the terms ``deficit'' and ``debt''. ``Fiscal responsibility'' has been reintroduced into the political lexicon and the result should prove a welcome relief not only to this generation but to those yet unborn generations that will be spared the mountain of debt we would otherwise bequeath in a legacy of lavish spending and fiscal recklessness. In light of these on-budget surpluses we now enjoy and the era of surpluses we are projected to see over the coming ten years, I would especially like to thank the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to balanced budgets and responsible decision-making. Thanks in large part to his leadership and his tireless efforts, the turbulent waves of annual deficits and mounting debt that have rocked this place for decades have been calmed. And, if we are willing to adhere to the kind of sound principles expounded for years by my colleague from New Mexico, in this year's budget resolution and others to come, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many years into the future. The budget resolution we are now considering not only maintains fiscal discipline, but it does so within a framework that ensures America's priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2002 and beyond. If the budget is a roadmap, this budget will point us toward four critical goals: First, it protects every penny of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses in upcoming years. Second, over the coming ten years, it pays down as much of the publicly-held debt as is considered possible, reducing it to its lowest level since 1916. Third, it provides a substantial funding increase for discretionary spending programs, including education and defense, and, thanks to the adoption of the Grassley-Snowe amendment yesterday, it includes significant funding for a new prescription drug benefit. And, fourth, from the non-Social Security surplus that remains, it provides tax relief for Americans during a time of rising economic uncertainty, and a time when the typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those of most Americans, especially the commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare surpluses and buying-down publicly-held debt. Accordingly, I believe this resolution deserves broad bipartisan support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire Congress. To truly appreciate how momentous the principles and policies reflected in this budget really are, one need only compare it to where we have been, and where we currently stand, on both tax and spending policies. As many of my colleagues are all too aware, it was not that long ago that the notion of buying-down federal debt would have been considered akin to a winter without snow in my home state of Maine, or maybe the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series. Except that, when it came to actually reducing the debt, it wasn't even a case of ``wait 'till next year''. It was more like ``Waiting for Godot.'' Yet, unlike Godot, the days of paying down our debt are real and have actually arrived. Through a growing economy and fiscal austerity, the federal government has not only paid down more federal debt over the past three years than at any time in history, $363 billion overall, but we now stand poised to buy-down as much of the debt as is considered financially feasible within the next ten years. While there are understandable differences of opinion on the precise amount of federal debt that can be retired over this time frame, the simple fact is that this budget resolution calls for the retirement of 2.4 trillion dollars of debt over the coming ten years, leaving the publicly-held debt at just over $800 billion in the year 2011. Of note, this level of publicly-held debt, which is the so-called ``irreducible'' level of debt according to CBO, is even lower than the $1.2 trillion ``irreducible'' debt level that was identified by both the current administration and the Clinton Administration in its January 2001 report. By the same token, the spending increases contained in this budget are not only significant--especially when compared to recent history-- but targeted toward specific and demonstrated needs. As my colleagues are aware, it was not that long ago that discretionary spending rarely, if ever, saw an annual increase. In fact, discretionary spending was essentially frozen between 1991 and 1996, with total outlays only $1 billion higher in 1996 than in 1991. Furthermore, from 1996 through the end of the decade, discretionary spending grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent. In contrast, this budget resolution provides for an increase in discretionary spending of four percent, a rate even higher than inflation. And although such an increase may not placate those who would prefer that the discretionary spending jumps of the past two years become the norm, the bottom line is that anyone who would have proposed a four percent increase during the past decade would have been considered a ``profligate spender''! In addition to providing a substantial increase in discretionary spending, this budget also provides much-needed funding for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. As my colleagues are aware, the need for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit could not be more clear. When Medicare was created in 1965, it followed the private health insurance model of the time--in- patient health care. Today, thirty-six years later, the expiration date on this prescription for health care--treating patients in hospitals rather than treating them at home, has long since come and gone. Correspondingly, the lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit has become the biggest hole, a black hole really, in the Medicare system. With tremendous leaps in drug therapies occurring almost daily, it is time to bring Medicare ``back to the future''. It is time to provide our seniors with prescription drug coverage. In my view, a solution to this pressing problem can't come soon enough. Drug coverage should be part and parcel of the Medicare system, not a patchwork system where some get coverage and some don't. Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a ``fringe benefit'' available only to those wealthy enough or poor enough to obtain coverage. It should be part and parcel of the Medicare system that will see today's seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st Century. Accordingly, I made the funding of a new prescription drug benefit my highest priority over the past three years on the Budget Committee. And I'm gratified that those efforts--which led to $20 billion being set aside for this purpose in the FY00 budget resolution, and $40 billion in the FY01 budget resolution, have helped pave the way for $153 billion being set aside for prescription drugs in this year's budget resolution, and an additional $147 billion being added for this purpose due to yesterday's adoption of the Grassley-Snowe amendment. As the Chair of the Finance Subcommittee on Health, I will be doing everything I can to help craft and enact a strong, reliable Medicare prescription drug benefit this year, and in that light I'd especially like to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, for committing himself and our Committee to developing such a benefit by the August recess. And with the additional monies the Grassley-Snowe amendment provided for this purpose, I am confident that we will not only meet this goal, but also ensure that the benefit we create will be meaningful and secure for years to come. After we have set aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses . . . after we have paid down as much debt as possible over the coming 10 years . . . and after we have provided for substantial but responsible and necessary increases in discretionary spending and resources for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, only then, from the remaining on-budget surpluses, do we provide for a tax cut. And there should be no mistake, this is much-needed tax relief for the American people. As outlined earlier, I believe that, given growing economic uncertainty, a tax cut is not only warranted in terms of returning some of the surplus to those who created it in the first place, the American people, but also in terms of the well-being of our economy. As for the need, the numbers speak for themselves. Economic growth has slowed considerably over the past two quarters. Consumer confidence has fallen precipitously since November and only stabilized this past month. The NASDAQ dropped 26 percent during the last quarter and is down 66 percent from its high of 13 months ago. The Dow has dropped nine percent over the past two months alone, with the S&P 500 dropping 16 percent over the same period of time. And reports of layoffs are coming with increased frequency, even as more and more ``dot-coms'' continue to close their doors and ``virtual reality'' has turned into harsh reality for countless investors. While a tax cut may not actually prevent a recession if one is in the offing, it would--as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated before the Senate Finance Committee--act as ``insurance'' should our recent downturn prove to be more than an inventory correction. Given the warning signs in the economy, I believe that's an insurance plan that Congress can't afford to forgo, lest we later be justifiably accused of ``fiddling while Rome burns.'' But it's not just the economy that could use a break, it's also the American taxpayer, especially when you consider that a typical family now pays more in taxes than for the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. And, as a percent of GDP, federal taxes are at their highest level, 20.6 percent, since 1944, and all previous record levels occurred during time of war, 1944, 1952, and 1969, or during the devastating recession of the early-1980s in which interest rates exceeded 20 percent and the highest marginal tax rate was 70 percent. Given this confluence of circumstances, both economic uncertainty and an historically high level of federal taxes, I believe a portion of the remaining on-budget surplus should be utilized for a tax cut. And by providing the blueprint for a tax cut of up to $1.6 trillion over the coming 10 years, Congress will have the ability to make a determination on both the appropriate size and content of such a package in the weeks ahead. At the same time, I understand the concerns that have been raised about the certainty of long-term economic and budget projections. Accordingly, I found Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recent testimony before the Budget Committee very compelling, especially his suggestion that we create some type of trigger mechanism linking tax and spending policies to actual budgetary performance in the future. Specifically, Chairman Greenspan stated that long-term tax and spending initiatives should ``be phased-in'' and should include ``. . . provisions that, in some way, would limit surplus-reducing actions if specified targets for the budget surplus and federal debt were not satisfied.'' Because the surplus is projected to grow successively larger over the coming 10 years, with two-thirds of the $3.1 trillion surplus accruing in the final five years, any new tax cuts or spending proposals will be forced to be phased-in if we are to preserve the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. Indeed, key provisions of the recent Bush tax proposal, including the marginal rate reductions, are phased-in. Accordingly, given Chairman Greenspan's suggestion, I believe it would be prudent for the Congress to enact a trigger that links future tax cuts and spending increases to specific targets for debt reduction. Such a proposal would ensure that all ``surplus reducing actions'', both tax cuts and spending increases, are contingent on actual fiscal performance. Consistent with Chairman Greenspan's proposal, I worked with Senator Bayh in developing a set of principles underlying a trigger mechanism, and joined in introducing these principles in a bipartisan, bicameral manner last month. The three-point principles we developed, and that were introduced with a total of 11 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, were as follows: First, long-term, surplus-reducing actions adopted during the 107th Congress should include a ``trigger'' or ``safety" mechanism that links the phase-in of such proposals to actual budgetary outcomes over the coming ten years; Second, the trigger will outline specific legislative or automatic actions that shall be taken if specific levels of public debt reduction are not achieved; Third, the trigger will only be applied prospectively and not repeal or cancel any previously implemented portion of a surplus-reducing action. In addition, enactment of the trigger will not prevent Congress from passing other legislation affecting the level of federal revenues or spending should future circumstances dictate such action. Ultimately, we believe the adoption of such a trigger mechanism will ensure that fiscal discipline and debt reduction remain our top priorities as the projected surplus is designated for various purposes during the months ahead. Ultimately, if the surpluses materialize as projected, the trigger would have absolutely no impact on any tax or spending proposals enacted during the 107th Congress. But if they do not, the trigger will provide an added level of fiscal discipline that will prevent a return to annual budget deficits and increased federal debt. Given the fact that, only a few weeks ago, some argued that a trigger was essentially ``dead,'' I would like to thank Chairman Domenici for agreeing to include these principles in the budget resolution that he planned to offer on the floor. Unfortunately, due to a ruling by the Parliamentarian, I understand that these and other provisions-- including the Medicare Lock-box and the tax cut reconciliation instructions--were subsequently removed. While the removal of the trigger principles from the Senate budget resolution is a disappointment, I am pleased that momentum for this idea is clearly growing. Not only were these principles nearly part- and-parcel of this year's budget resolution, but Senator Bayh and I are now in the process of converting these principles into an actual legislative mechanism--and I know that other members are seeking to craft their own mechanisms. By protecting Social Security and Medicare surpluses, buying down debt, providing substantial funds for a new Medicare prescription drug benefit, enhancing funding for shared priorities such as education and defense, and only then cutting taxes, I believe the Senate budget resolution deserves strong support. Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree with specific provisions in this resolution, the amendment process we are now undertaking provides each of us with the opportunity to offer or support changes that better reflect our priorities. Furthermore, the simple fact is that this is a budget framework, or ``blueprint'', that establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, and ultimately by members on the floor. Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do not harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and commend the Chairman Domenici, again, for his efforts in crafting this balanced resolution.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee for provisions in his substitute amendment that reinforce President Bush's budget blueprint for the use of advance appropriations as a mechanism for capital investment. The chairman's extraordinary foresight will ensure that the option to use advance appropriations will still be available as a budget management tool for Congress and Federal departments and agencies. As described by OMB Circular A-11, advance appropriations is a funding mechanism, which together with funding in the current year, provides full funding of capital projects and scores following year funds as new budget authority in the year in which funds become available for obligation. This mechanism is used by various departments, such as the Department of Energy and the Department of Transportation, and agencies, such as NASA, to level fund capital projects. In addition, the Department of Defense is considering employing advance appropriations for capital projects in the future. Section 13 of the House Budget Resolution recommends severely restricting the ability to use the method of advance appropriations by requiring a capital investment program be scored against 302(a) allocations and totaled in the year in which these appropriations are enacted. This differs from scoring the appropriations in the year in which it is obligated. The flexibility to use the advance appropriations method is an important management tool that enables federal agencies and departments to score capital investment project appropriations in the year in which they are obligated rather than scoring the whole cost of the project in the year in which the appropriations are enacted. This option allows the federal government to make selected capital investments in much the way the American people would, and that is pay as you go. I urge my colleagues to support and sustain the advance appropriations provision included by our distinguished Budget Committee chairman in his substitute amendment. workforce investment

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment that has a very simple purpose: to increase mandatory health spending by $28 billion to increase health insurance coverage. This is a matter of great national urgency. Today, nearly 33 million adults and 10 million children go without health care coverage. That's 18 percent of all Americans. And despite record employment and a booming economy over the past decade, over eighty percent of the uninsured are in working families. Quite simply, we cannot afford to be complacent. Both the nation and individuals pay a penalty for the lack of health insurance. Indeed, one of the most deeply disturbing is that health care costs more for the uninsured! According to a recent New York Times article, because ``health insurance companies insist on hefty discounts'' for their patients, there can be ``extreme price disparities'' between what the uninsured are charged for medical care and what people with insurance are charged. For example, one internal medicine specialist reported that the cost of his bills for ``routine exam[s]'' can vary by 45 percent, with ``the uninsured pay[ing] the most'' and those with insurance ``pay[ing] much less than their share.'' As a result of such arrangements, ``some uninsured people struggle for years to pay medical bills and others put off seeing a doctor until minor problems become major ones.'' How might these funds be spent to improve health insurance coverage? One very promising approach is legislation that will be introduced shortly to expand the SCHIP program to provide health insurance coverage of parents of children eligible for the program. As I am sure many Members know, in 1997, under the leadership of Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller, Senators Hatch and the late John Chafee, Congress created the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or ``S-CHIP.'' Since SCHIP was launched just 3 short years ago, this Federal-State partnership has provided health insurance coverage to 3.3 million low-income children. My home State of Maine is justifiably proud of its Cub Care program, covering 9,500 low-income children. What could be a greater priority of our Nation than the health and well-being of our children? What greater responsibility do we have as leaders and adults? The fact of the matter is, if we are to be stewards of the future, we must be protectors of our children. America's children cannot grow up strong if they do not grow up healthy. But just as the early results are encouraging, we can and must do more. Despite a team effort to enroll all eligible children, one-third of the remaining 18,000 uninsured children in Maine are currently eligible for coverage under Medicaid or Cub Care, but aren't receiving the benefits. Nationwide, an estimated 6.3 million additional children who could be served by the program remain unenrolled. Like a letter mailed without an address, benefits that aren't delivered are benefits that might as well not exist. We must reach our goal of covering all those who are eligible. The solution, or the ``key prescription'' as one Maine pediatrician said is health insurance coverage for their parents. Here is some evidence. Three of the first States that provided coverage to parents under Medicaid saw their coverage of eligible children increase by 16 percent from 1990 to 1998, compared to 3 percent for States that didn't cover parents. The bottom line is that parental coverage means that children are more likely to be enrolled in SCHIP; and that means better access to medical care. Of course, there are many other possible avenues to improve health care coverage. Indeed, no one solution is the answer for all 43 million uninsured Americans. But none of the options is possible without funding. I urge all Senators who believe as I do that we must improve health insurance coverage to vote for this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to promote export opportunities for our nation's small businesses. Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses account for over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ over 50 percent of the workforce, and account for virtually all of the new jobs being created. Maine, in particular, is a state with a historical record of self-reliance and small business enterprise. Of the roughly 37,000 employers, about 97 percent are small firms. Maine also boasts an estimated 73,000 self-employed persons. Surveys credit small businesses with virtually all of the new job creation in the state as well. In addition, small firms played a central role in the latest economic expansion. From 1992 to 1996, for example, small firms created 75 percent of the new jobs, up 10.5 percent, while large company employment grew only 3.7 percent. In the trade arena, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, the number of small U.S. firms engaged in exporting has tripled since 1987, and over the past five years, the dollar value of small business exports has grown 300 percent. Small business now accounts for 31 percent of the value of U.S. exports. Overall, 97 percent of all exporters are small businesses, with the most dramatic export growth among companies employing less than 20 people. Firms engaged in international trade are 20 percent more productive, and employee wages are 15 percent higher in firms that trade as compared to firms that do not engage in trade. These firms are also 9 percent less likely to go bankrupt, and experience 20 percent greater job growth than non-traders. Despite these impressive statistics, less than one percent of U.S. small businesses are engaged in international trade-related business activities. That is why I believe so strongly that there is substantial export potential in the small business community that has yet to be fully realized. Small and medium-sized businesses are the fastest growing segment of the international business community. However, many report that their interests have not been given sufficient attention by our international trade negotiators. In addition, small businesses often cannot afford to maintain in-house international trade expertise to resolve complex trade problems. Small business advocacy groups often lack political influence in foreign markets, which hinders solving problems outside of the legal process. Small firms often do not have the sales volume to overcome the costs of trade barriers and substantial overhead expenses in international transactions. With these concerns in mind, in January, I introduced the Small Business Enhancement Act of 2001, which contains a provision to establish the position of Assistant United Trade Representative for Small Business. I believe that this important step would ensure that small businesses have a seat at the table when international trade agreements are being negotiated. The measure I am introducing today takes this concept one step further by expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Trade Representative, USTR, should pursue the establishment of a small business advocate within the World Trade Organization, WTO, as a matter of U.S. policy. Because the WTO is the principal international organization for rules governing world-wide international trade, it has the potential to address a range of global trade issues of concern to small businesses in the U.S. In addition, it stands to reason that better coordination is needed between small business support and advocacy agencies around the world and small firms and trade associations. My bill requires the USTR to pursue the establishment of a small business advocate at the WTO in order to safeguard the interests of small firms and represent those interests in trade negotiations and disputes. It also directs the USTR to submit a report to Congress on the steps taken to establish this advocate. I hope this legislation will provide a foundation for small businesses during the next round of WTO negotiations. I look forward to working with the Senate Small Business Committee and the Senate Finance Committee as we work to ensure that U.S. businesses enjoy the full benefits of international trade.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to promote export opportunities for our nation's small businesses. Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses account for over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ over 50 percent of the workforce, and account for virtually all of the new jobs being created. Maine, in particular, is a state with a historical record of self-reliance and small business enterprise. Of the roughly 37,000 employers, about 97 percent are small firms. Maine also boasts an estimated 73,000 self-employed persons. Surveys credit small businesses with virtually all of the new job creation in the state as well. In addition, small firms played a central role in the latest economic expansion. From 1992 to 1996, for example, small firms created 75 percent of the new jobs, up 10.5 percent, while large company employment grew only 3.7 percent. In the trade arena, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, the number of small U.S. firms engaged in exporting has tripled since 1987, and over the past five years, the dollar value of small business exports has grown 300 percent. Small business now accounts for 31 percent of the value of U.S. exports. Overall, 97 percent of all exporters are small businesses, with the most dramatic export growth among companies employing less than 20 people. Firms engaged in international trade are 20 percent more productive, and employee wages are 15 percent higher in firms that trade as compared to firms that do not engage in trade. These firms are also 9 percent less likely to go bankrupt, and experience 20 percent greater job growth than non-traders. Despite these impressive statistics, less than one percent of U.S. small businesses are engaged in international trade-related business activities. That is why I believe so strongly that there is substantial export potential in the small business community that has yet to be fully realized. Small and medium-sized businesses are the fastest growing segment of the international business community. However, many report that their interests have not been given sufficient attention by our international trade negotiators. In addition, small businesses often cannot afford to maintain in-house international trade expertise to resolve complex trade problems. Small business advocacy groups often lack political influence in foreign markets, which hinders solving problems outside of the legal process. Small firms often do not have the sales volume to overcome the costs of trade barriers and substantial overhead expenses in international transactions. With these concerns in mind, in January, I introduced the Small Business Enhancement Act of 2001, which contains a provision to establish the position of Assistant United Trade Representative for Small Business. I believe that this important step would ensure that small businesses have a seat at the table when international trade agreements are being negotiated. The measure I am introducing today takes this concept one step further by expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Trade Representative, USTR, should pursue the establishment of a small business advocate within the World Trade Organization, WTO, as a matter of U.S. policy. Because the WTO is the principal international organization for rules governing world-wide international trade, it has the potential to address a range of global trade issues of concern to small businesses in the U.S. In addition, it stands to reason that better coordination is needed between small business support and advocacy agencies around the world and small firms and trade associations. My bill requires the USTR to pursue the establishment of a small business advocate at the WTO in order to safeguard the interests of small firms and represent those interests in trade negotiations and disputes. It also directs the USTR to submit a report to Congress on the steps taken to establish this advocate. I hope this legislation will provide a foundation for small businesses during the next round of WTO negotiations. I look forward to working with the Senate Small Business Committee and the Senate Finance Committee as we work to ensure that U.S. businesses enjoy the full benefits of international trade.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am delighted to co-sponsor this amendment with Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee. This amendment has a simple but critical purpose: to increase by $147 billion the reserve fund in this resolution for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and Medicare reform. That is, this amendment would nearly double the reserve fund to $300 billion, with monies coming from the on-budget surplus. Let me note that nothing in this amendment commits Congress to spend the entire reserve fund. Indeed, in truth we do not yet know what additional resources will be needed. We will know better when the Congressional Budget Office reports estimates several weeks from now on a variety of Medicare reform and prescription drug proposals. In short, this additional reserve amount will help ensure that the President and Congress will have sufficient resources to enact both a prescription drug benefit and other badly needed Medicare improvements this year. I am sure my colleagues are very aware of the need for prescription drug coverage, I think the facts underlying this national problem for our nation's senior citizens bear repeating. When Medicare was created in 1965, it emphasized the private health insurance model of the time, inpatient health care. In fact, the original Johnson Administration Medicare proposal was only for hospital care. Doctor's services, and other outpatient care, was added by Congress as a voluntary program. Today, thirty-six years later, Medicare, although a great blessing to our nation's seniors, is sadly out of date. It is past time to bring Medicare ``back to the future'' by providing our seniors with prescription drug coverage. Indeed, hardly a day goes by without some announcement of a new and exciting breakthrough in drug therapy, breakthroughs that promise better care for millions of Americans. The lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit is the biggest hole, a black hole really, in the Medicare system. HCFA will tell you that up to 65 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage from other sources. But that number simply doesn't tell the whole story. Specifically, fourteen percent of Medicare beneficiaries get drug coverage from one of the three Medigap policies that cover drugs. Two of these policies require a $250 deductible and then only cover 50 percent of the cost of the drug with a $1,250 cap. Needless to say, you can reach that cap awfully fast with today's drug prices. The third policy provides a cap of $3,000 but the premium ranges anywhere from $1,699 to $3,171 depending on where you live. That is a lot of money for someone living on a fixed income. About 15 percent of seniors get drug coverage from participating in Medicare HMOs. However, we know the Medicare+Choice program has been under great pressure over the last few years, making this source of prescription drugs less reliable. And another 16 percent receive coverage from Medicaid. Of course to do that, they must be very low-income to begin with and may have to spend a great deal out of pocket for their drugs, what we commonly refer to as ``spending down'', before they are eligible in a given year for coverage. Finally, there are those lucky enough, 29 percent, to have employer sponsored drug coverage through their retiree program. Medicare fails today's elderly patients in other ways. The preventive care services offered under Medicare, while greatly expanded, are still insufficient to help seniors remain healthy, and therefore avoid more expensive care later. And routine services such as annual physicals, vision tests and hearing aids are not covered. Medicare also only provides limited financial protection. Indeed, we must always remember that Medicare is not just about health care, but protection against potentially high costs of health care. The program has a fee-for-service cost-sharing structure that still leaves seniors vulnerable to high costs. Indeed, the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program covers only 53 percent of the average senior's annual medical expenses. Moreover, management of the Medicare program is burdened by vast bureaucratic complexity and operates in a non-competitive, inefficient manner. It lacks the flexibility to operate differently. Medicare's financing and accounting is confusing. Medicare currently maintains separate trust funds, one for inpatient hospital and post- acute care, and one for physician fees and other outpatient costs. This separation leads to misleading assessments of Medicare's financial status and again reflects a different era of medicine. There is irrefutable evidence that Medicare's finances are not sustainable or affordable in the long-term. I daresay that no one in this chamber would disagree that Medicare needs improvements. This amendment will make reform possible. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of the President on Medicare reform. The President has laid down six principles, which in my view are the starting point for our efforts. The President is preserving committed Medicare's guarantee of access to seniors. Every Medicare recipient must have a choice of health plans, including the option of purchasing a plan that covers prescription drugs. Medicare must cover expenses for low-income seniors. Reform must provide streamlined access to the latest medical technologies. Medicare payroll taxes must not be increased. And reform must establish an accurate measure of the solvency of Medicare. The funding for this amendment would come from the on-budget surplus. I know that is a particular problem for some Members across the aisle, because that surplus represents cash from HI payroll tax. Of course, HI taxes are credited first to the HI trust fund, so there is no solvency impact. But for those Members who believe that this source of funds is a problem, let me simply point out that in 1972, when the Finance Committee first reported Medicare outpatient drug provisions, those provisions would have been funded directly from the HI payroll tax. I urge all Senators who believe as I do that we must add a Medicare prescription drug plan and improve Medicare in other ways to vote for this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to simplify and restore fairness to the naval shipyard accounting statutes under which our six major U.S. naval shipyards pay taxes on the naval ship contracts they are awarded by the Navy. Quite simply, this legislation would permit naval shipyards to use a method of accounting under which shipbuilders would pay income taxes upon delivery of a ship rather than during construction. Under current law, profits must be estimated during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process and taxes must be paid on those estimated profits. The legislation being proposed would simply allow naval shipbuilders to use a method of accounting, under which the shipbuilder would pay taxes when the ship is actually delivered to the Navy. Prior to 1982, federal law permitted shipbuilders to use this method, but the law was changed due to abuses by federal contractors in another sector, having absolutely nothing to do with shipbuilding. Moreover, non-government shipbuilding contracts are already allowed to use this method of accounting, and this legislation contains provisions designed to prevent the types of abuses witnessed in the past. Specifically, the bill would restrict shipyards from deferring tax payments for a period beyond the time it takes to build a single ship. This bill would not reduce the amount of taxes ultimately paid by the shipbuilder. It simply would defer payment until the profit is actually known upon delivery of the ship. I believe that this is the most fair and most sensible accounting method. It is the method that naval shipbuilders used to employ. It is the method which commercial builders are permitted to use to this day. This legislation has the strong support of the major shipyards that build for the Navy. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to simplify and restore fairness to the naval shipyard accounting statutes under which our six major U.S. naval shipyards pay taxes on the naval ship contracts they are awarded by the Navy. Quite simply, this legislation would permit naval shipyards to use a method of accounting under which shipbuilders would pay income taxes upon delivery of a ship rather than during construction. Under current law, profits must be estimated during the construction phases of the shipbuilding process and taxes must be paid on those estimated profits. The legislation being proposed would simply allow naval shipbuilders to use a method of accounting, under which the shipbuilder would pay taxes when the ship is actually delivered to the Navy. Prior to 1982, federal law permitted shipbuilders to use this method, but the law was changed due to abuses by federal contractors in another sector, having absolutely nothing to do with shipbuilding. Moreover, non-government shipbuilding contracts are already allowed to use this method of accounting, and this legislation contains provisions designed to prevent the types of abuses witnessed in the past. Specifically, the bill would restrict shipyards from deferring tax payments for a period beyond the time it takes to build a single ship. This bill would not reduce the amount of taxes ultimately paid by the shipbuilder. It simply would defer payment until the profit is actually known upon delivery of the ship. I believe that this is the most fair and most sensible accounting method. It is the method that naval shipbuilders used to employ. It is the method which commercial builders are permitted to use to this day. This legislation has the strong support of the major shipyards that build for the Navy. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to strike that has been offered by my good friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine. Make no mistake about it. A vote to strike the Snowe-Jeffords provision specifically would be a vote against disclosure. It is interesting to hear my colleague describe the amendments and the provisions that are contained with the McCain-Feingold legislation; that it is a restriction on the first amendment right, the right to free speech. That is not only a mischaracterization, but it is false. The Supreme Court never said you can't make distinctions in political campaigns in terms of what is express advocacy and issue advocacy. That is what we have attempted to do with the support of more than 70 constitutional experts--to design legislation that is carefully crafted that says if these organizations want to run ads, do it as the rest of us. Use the hard money that we have to raise in order to finance those ads 60 days before an election that mention a Federal candidate. We are seeing the stealth advocacy ad phenomenon multiplying in America today--three times the amount of money that is spent on so- called sham ads in the election of 2000, and three times the amount in 1996. Why? Because of what they have done to skirt the disclosure laws because they do not use the magic words ``vote for or against.'' They mention a candidate. Is it no coincidence that they are mentioning the candidate's name 60 days before an election? What for? It is to impact the outcome of that election. What we are saying is disclose who you are. Let's unveil this masquerade. Let's unveil this cloak of anonymity. Tell us who you are. Tell us who is financing these ads to the tune of $500 million in this last election. The public has the right to know. We have the right to know. That is what this amendment is all about. It is not an infringement on free speech. It is political speech. Even my colleague from Ohio said it is political speech, political speech you have to disclose. That is what we are talking about in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a study entitled ``The Facts about Television Advertising and the McCain- Feingold Bill.''

Ms. SNOWE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.