Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to promote growth in the domestic cruise ship industry and at the same time enable U.S. shipyards to compete for cruise ship orders. The legislation would provide tax incentives for U.S. cruise ship construction and operation. Current law prohibits non-U.S. vessels from carrying passengers between U.S. ports. As such, today's domestic cruise market is very limited. The cruise industry consists predominantly of foreign vessels which must sail to and from foreign ports. The vast majority of cruise passengers are Americans, but most of the revenues now go to foreign destinations. That is because the high cost of building and operating U.S.-flag cruise ships and competition from modern, foreign-flag cruise ships have deterred growth in the domestic cruise ship trade. By some estimates, a single port call by a cruise vessel generates between $300,000 and $500,000 in economic benefits. This is a very lucrative market, and I would like to see U.S. companies and American workers benefit from this untapped potential. However, domestic ship builders and cruise operations face a very difficult, up-hill battle against unfair competition from foreign cruise lines and foreign shipyards. Foreign cruise lines, for example, pay no corporate income tax. Nor are they held to the same demanding ship construction and operating standards imposed on U.S.-flag vessel operators. Foreign cruise lines are also free from the need to comply with many U.S. labor and environmental protection laws, and U.S. health, safety, and sanitation laws do not apply to the foreign ships. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to level the playing field between the U.S. cruise industry and the international cruise industry. For example, it provides that a shipyard will pay taxes on the construction or overhaul of a cruise ship of 20,000 gross tons or greater only after the delivery of the ship. Under my bill, a U.S. company operating a cruise ship of 20,000 grt and greater may depreciate that vessel over a five-year period rather than the current 10-year depreciation period. The bill would also repeal the $2,500 business tax deduction limit for a convention on a cruise ship to provide a tax deduction limit equal to that provided to conventions held at shore-side hotels. The measure would authorize a 20 percent tax credit for fuel operating costs associated with environmentally clean gas turbine engines manufactured in the U.S., and also allows use of investment of Capital Construction Funds to include not only the non-contiguous trades, but also the domestic point-to- point trades and ``cruises to nowhere''. Mr. President, I truly believe that this legislation would help jumpstart the domestic cruise trade, benefit U.S. workers and companies, and promote economic growth in our ports. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States- Canada trade. The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long overdue and should be considered. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic and trade from the very people who are dealing with trade problems. The Council will enable the United States to more effectively administer the trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not only in my State of Maine, but also in the other northern border States, on this critical policy issue. Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the fact is that too often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of the northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. The Council will also advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, practices, and problems. Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. It is by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is the largest source of U.S. imports. In 1999, total two-way merchandise commerce was $365 billion--that's $1 billion a day. With an economy one-tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports. The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen in recent years with actual farmer border blockades in some border states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies. Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993. They also negotiated the 1996 US-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, which will expire two months from now, on March 31. Even though some of us in Congress urged the last Administration on more than one occasion to negotiate a process with Canadian officials to work for a fairer alternative, nothing was attempted on a government to government basis. Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and Ottawa for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat imports, animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology. Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have impacted more than just the northern border States. Each and every day, an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States- Canada border. There are literally thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely on this cross-border traffic and trade for their livelihood. My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk shipments from the United States. I might add that there has still not been any movement towards solutions for these problems, even though I have been given promises every year that trade problems with Canada would be a top priority for discussion. This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during a 1997 International Trade Commission investigations hearing, where I testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC followed up with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict imports of bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or repacking, and that the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk shipment restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies for its potato growers. Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax, [PST] on goods purchased in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the other provinces bordering New Brunswick. After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment I offered to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not crafted by the USTR. Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted their attention and action. We had no way of knowing whether problems similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States- Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to how to deal with it. The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming. In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in monitoring cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and burdens present to the northern border states. The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend how to resolve them. The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act as nontariff barriers to trade. As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State. If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal Government or a Canadian Provincial government. The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term. The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices have been ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer severe economic consequences at various times because of it. This legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full partners for issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, the Small Business Employment and Education Act of 2001, which is designed to enhance federal efforts to facilitate the involvement of small business owners and entrepreneurs in state and local initiatives to improve the quality of education programs for our young people. In 1999, the Small Business Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing chaired by Senator Bond, chairman of the committee, on the challenges facing the small business community as a result of the failure of many of our educational institutions to teach students the basic skills that are necessary to succeed in today's work environment. The committee heard testimony from a number of small businesses and organizations about this growing problem. And just how big is the problem? A 1999 American Management Association survey on workplace testing found that approximately 36 percent of employees tested for basic skills were found to be deficient in these skills, and small businesses reported deficiency rates well above the national average. Sixty percent of AMA-member companies reported that the availability of skilled manpower was scarce, and 67 percent believe that the shortages will continue. A 1999 NFIB report found that 18 percent of NFIB members report that finding qualified labor is the single most important problem facing their business today. Likewise, a 1999 poll of U.S. Chambers of Commerce found that 83 percent reported the ability--or lack thereof--to find qualified workers was among their biggest concerns, and 53 percent said education is the single most pressing public policy issue to them. This information clearly illustrates that the business community, and small businesses in particular, have an important stake in the education of our youth. One of the most fundamental needs that any growing business faces is the need for employees with basic skills, and concerns have been expressed by the small business community that many students are not graduating with the basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and science--skills they need to succeed in today's workplace or become the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the growth of high-skilled jobs is outpacing growth in all other fields. We must not allow basic skills to slip away if we are to remain competitive in an increasingly aggressive and technology-based global market. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and as we authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must take into account the needs of businesses, and small businesses in particular. To that end, locally-driven initiatives are crucial. In order to create jobs, we must encourage small business expansion and foster small business entrepreneurship and, and I believe that education initiatives are key to this. Under the Small Business Employment and Education Enhancement Act, the Department of Education would disseminate information and facilitate the sharing of information designed to assist small businesses in working with school systems in an effort to improve our educational institutions. For example, the agency would publish guidance materials, best practices, checklists and other materials on the World Wide Web, in Department of Education publications and articles, letters, links to related World Wide Web sites, public service announcements, and through other means at the Department's disposal. The Department of Education would establish a centralized database of materials and act as a clearinghouse for information on initiatives that have proven successful. The Secretary of the Department of Education would also establish an Office of Small Business Education to promote efforts to address the needs of small businesses though education programs. This division would work to remove any existing impediments to partnerships between school systems and small businesses, and propose solutions to education-related problems facing small businesses. The goal of the bill I am introducing today is to facilitate partnerships between communities and businesses. I believe it should be easy for communities that are interested in designing business/school partnerships to get the information they need on how to do so. With access to the kinds of sources envisioned in this legislation, communities would be able to model a program after a proven approach. In addition, my bill authorizes technical assistance to be administered by the Office of Small Business Education to be used to provide guidance to small businesses, small business organizations, school systems, and communities working cooperatively to enhance the teaching of basic skills. The bill would also establish tax credits to encourage companies to provide work study, internship, or fellowship opportunities for students and teachers. Finally, the bill includes a provision directing the Department of Education to conduct a study and report to Congress on the challenges facing small businesses in obtaining workers with adequate skills; an assessment of the impact on small businesses of the skills shortage; the costs to small businesses associated with this shortage; and the recommendations of the Secretary on how to address these challenges. Mr. President, I hope this legislation will provide a foundation for cooperative initiatives between small businesses and school systems, and I look forward to working with the Small Business Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and others as we work to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of our Nation's small business community. This legislation will benefit small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of each piece of congressional legislation on small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and also by creating an assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation-- we must encourage small business expansion. 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 workers. Small businesses 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. In Maine, of the roughly 36,660 employers, 97.6 percent are small businesses. Maine also boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. Surveys credit small businesses with all of the new jobs in Maine as well. I believe that small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest-- job training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting small business, government too often frustrates small business efforts. Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for small businesses each year, according to the Small Business Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate America rather than in small businesses. My legislation will address these two challenges facing small businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion and fuel further job creation. One, this legislation will require a cost analysis of legislative proposals before new requirements are imposed on small businesses. Too often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help avert such unintended consequences. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling our government paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small businesses. This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through careful planning, we may succeed in mitigating unintended costs. Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened, and too often overlooks the needs of small business. This is a concern that I have heard time and again from those in the small business community. A new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative would promote exports by small businesses and work to remove foreign impediments to exports. Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial potential but also in good new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I first offered during the 106th Congress during the Senate Small Business Committee's consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Administration. This legislation is very simple and straight forward. It is designed to enhance the SBA Microloan program, which provides small, short-term loans for purchase of machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures, inventory, supplies, and working capital for small businesses. These loans are made through SBA-approved nonprofit groups or intermediaries, which also provide counseling and educational assistance to firms or individuals. Under the Microloan program, intermediaries operate both as lenders and as technical asistance providers. Through technical assistance, the intermediaries help the borrower to develop a business plan, to secure financing and to learn how to operate a business. I am very proud of the four Microloan intermediaries in my home state of Maine: Coastal Enterprises, Northern Maine Development Company, Eastern Maine Development Company, and Community Concepts. Mr. President, these organizations do great work in my state, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize them. I have long been a supporter of the Microloan program, and I am proud to sponsor this legislation today, which is designed to enhance and expand the program. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today is to support efforts to increase the reach of and the number of Microlenders by authorizing peer-to-peer mentoring where experienced lending intermediaries can share their knowledge and experience with other intermediaries or organizations looking to develop a mcirolending program. Currently, there are no resources to support such activities. Under this legislation, industry would develop a network of intermediaries with training experience and develop a system to match them with intermediaries seeking assistance. Under my bill, the program would authorize $1 million annually, and the funding would come out of already-authorized funding for Microloan technical assistance. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in the ongoing effort to improve the successful Microloan program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, the Small Business Employment and Education Act of 2001, which is designed to enhance federal efforts to facilitate the involvement of small business owners and entrepreneurs in state and local initiatives to improve the quality of education programs for our young people. In 1999, the Small Business Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing chaired by Senator Bond, chairman of the committee, on the challenges facing the small business community as a result of the failure of many of our educational institutions to teach students the basic skills that are necessary to succeed in today's work environment. The committee heard testimony from a number of small businesses and organizations about this growing problem. And just how big is the problem? A 1999 American Management Association survey on workplace testing found that approximately 36 percent of employees tested for basic skills were found to be deficient in these skills, and small businesses reported deficiency rates well above the national average. Sixty percent of AMA-member companies reported that the availability of skilled manpower was scarce, and 67 percent believe that the shortages will continue. A 1999 NFIB report found that 18 percent of NFIB members report that finding qualified labor is the single most important problem facing their business today. Likewise, a 1999 poll of U.S. Chambers of Commerce found that 83 percent reported the ability--or lack thereof--to find qualified workers was among their biggest concerns, and 53 percent said education is the single most pressing public policy issue to them. This information clearly illustrates that the business community, and small businesses in particular, have an important stake in the education of our youth. One of the most fundamental needs that any growing business faces is the need for employees with basic skills, and concerns have been expressed by the small business community that many students are not graduating with the basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and science--skills they need to succeed in today's workplace or become the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the growth of high-skilled jobs is outpacing growth in all other fields. We must not allow basic skills to slip away if we are to remain competitive in an increasingly aggressive and technology-based global market. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and as we authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we must take into account the needs of businesses, and small businesses in particular. To that end, locally-driven initiatives are crucial. In order to create jobs, we must encourage small business expansion and foster small business entrepreneurship and, and I believe that education initiatives are key to this. Under the Small Business Employment and Education Enhancement Act, the Department of Education would disseminate information and facilitate the sharing of information designed to assist small businesses in working with school systems in an effort to improve our educational institutions. For example, the agency would publish guidance materials, best practices, checklists and other materials on the World Wide Web, in Department of Education publications and articles, letters, links to related World Wide Web sites, public service announcements, and through other means at the Department's disposal. The Department of Education would establish a centralized database of materials and act as a clearinghouse for information on initiatives that have proven successful. The Secretary of the Department of Education would also establish an Office of Small Business Education to promote efforts to address the needs of small businesses though education programs. This division would work to remove any existing impediments to partnerships between school systems and small businesses, and propose solutions to education-related problems facing small businesses. The goal of the bill I am introducing today is to facilitate partnerships between communities and businesses. I believe it should be easy for communities that are interested in designing business/school partnerships to get the information they need on how to do so. With access to the kinds of sources envisioned in this legislation, communities would be able to model a program after a proven approach. In addition, my bill authorizes technical assistance to be administered by the Office of Small Business Education to be used to provide guidance to small businesses, small business organizations, school systems, and communities working cooperatively to enhance the teaching of basic skills. The bill would also establish tax credits to encourage companies to provide work study, internship, or fellowship opportunities for students and teachers. Finally, the bill includes a provision directing the Department of Education to conduct a study and report to Congress on the challenges facing small businesses in obtaining workers with adequate skills; an assessment of the impact on small businesses of the skills shortage; the costs to small businesses associated with this shortage; and the recommendations of the Secretary on how to address these challenges. Mr. President, I hope this legislation will provide a foundation for cooperative initiatives between small businesses and school systems, and I look forward to working with the Small Business Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and others as we work to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of our Nation's small business community. This legislation will benefit small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of each piece of congressional legislation on small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and also by creating an assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation-- we must encourage small business expansion. 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 workers. Small businesses 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. In Maine, of the roughly 36,660 employers, 97.6 percent are small businesses. Maine also boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. Surveys credit small businesses with all of the new jobs in Maine as well. I believe that small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest-- job training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting small business, government too often frustrates small business efforts. Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for small businesses each year, according to the Small Business Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote a disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate America rather than in small businesses. My legislation will address these two challenges facing small businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion and fuel further job creation. One, this legislation will require a cost analysis of legislative proposals before new requirements are imposed on small businesses. Too often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help avert such unintended consequences. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling our government paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small businesses. This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through careful planning, we may succeed in mitigating unintended costs. Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened, and too often overlooks the needs of small business. This is a concern that I have heard time and again from those in the small business community. A new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative would promote exports by small businesses and work to remove foreign impediments to exports. Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial potential but also in good new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I first offered during the 106th Congress during the Senate Small Business Committee's consideration of legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Administration. This legislation is very simple and straight forward. It is designed to enhance the SBA Microloan program, which provides small, short-term loans for purchase of machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures, inventory, supplies, and working capital for small businesses. These loans are made through SBA-approved nonprofit groups or intermediaries, which also provide counseling and educational assistance to firms or individuals. Under the Microloan program, intermediaries operate both as lenders and as technical asistance providers. Through technical assistance, the intermediaries help the borrower to develop a business plan, to secure financing and to learn how to operate a business. I am very proud of the four Microloan intermediaries in my home state of Maine: Coastal Enterprises, Northern Maine Development Company, Eastern Maine Development Company, and Community Concepts. Mr. President, these organizations do great work in my state, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize them. I have long been a supporter of the Microloan program, and I am proud to sponsor this legislation today, which is designed to enhance and expand the program. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today is to support efforts to increase the reach of and the number of Microlenders by authorizing peer-to-peer mentoring where experienced lending intermediaries can share their knowledge and experience with other intermediaries or organizations looking to develop a mcirolending program. Currently, there are no resources to support such activities. Under this legislation, industry would develop a network of intermediaries with training experience and develop a system to match them with intermediaries seeking assistance. Under my bill, the program would authorize $1 million annually, and the funding would come out of already-authorized funding for Microloan technical assistance. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in the ongoing effort to improve the successful Microloan program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, to introduce the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act--legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 school construction, renovation, and repair. The legislation--which is endorsed by the National Education Association and National PTA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education--would accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility. Mr. President, 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 in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools need 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 build 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. Mr. President, 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. Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have increased federal funding for IDEA by approximately $3.8 billion over the past five years, 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 do more to assist state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control. Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today--the ``BRICKS Act''--will do just that. Specifically, it addresses our nation's school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school construction and those who do not. First, our legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. By designating that at least one-half of these loan monies must be used to pay the interest owed to bondholders on new school construction bonds that are issued through the year 2003, the federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that would not otherwise be made. In addition, by providing that up to one- half of the monies may be used for state-wide school construction initiatives, the bill provides needed flexibility to ensure that unique state and local approaches to school construction will also be supported, such as revolving loan funds. 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, there will be no requirement that states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot. Second, our bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future. Specifically, our bill would make these loans to states from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso. In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund should be liquidated. Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over the ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help America's schools. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in loans provided by my legislation will be made from the ESF--an amount identical to the line of credit that was extended to Mexico by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of importance, these loans will be made from the ESF on a progressive, annual basis--not in a sudden or immediate manner. Furthermore, these monies will be repaid to the fund to ensure that the ESF is compensated for the loans it makes. Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that states and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest, or that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable period of time. In fact, if the federal government fails to substantially increase its share of IDEA funding, states will incur no interest at all! Specifically, to encourage the federal government to meet its funding commitment for IDEA--and to compensate states for the fact that every dollar in forgone IDEA funding is a dollar less that they have for school construction or other local needs--our bill 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. Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local governments to support school construction, I believe that our bill represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national problem. For those who support a direct, active federal role in school construction, our bill provides substantial federal assistance by dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs that the monies provided to states will be repaid, and that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of these monies. Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''-- legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if we work together, we can 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support from the NEA, PTA, NASBE, and Jim Rier, the Chairman of the Maine State Board of Education, be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill along with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, to ensure that we will have balanced, comprehensive campaign finance reform that doesn't close one loophole while leaving another open. It is a bipartisan approach to a burgeoning segment of undisclosed and unregulated campaign activity that will only get worse if left unchecked. Mr. President, the bill I am offering is based on a provision this body added to the McCain-Feingold bill three years ago, and a bill we introduced in the 106th Congress. With that amendment, the Senate finally went on record as having a majority in support of campaign finance reform. In fact, 53 senators cast a vote supporting the combined approach of a soft money ban and a sound, constitutional approach to addressing a veritable explosion in unregulated, so-called ``issue ads''. Senator Jeffords and I crafted this measure because we wanted campaign finance reform; we wanted a bill that represented the best possible policy; and we wanted a package that could bridge the political gap that had opened between supporters and opponents. On the one hand, we had Republicans concerned that McCain-Feingold, as it stood, might not have done enough to focus on the use of the union dues for political purposes. On the other hand, we had Democrats who didn't want unions signaled out and wanted corporate money to be addressed as well. That's the context in which we set out to carefully construct a measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny, address some of the most egregious abuses, and focus on areas where we know the Supreme Court has already allowed us to go--disclosure, and a prohibition on union and corporation money for electioneering. Indeed, the compromise language eventually adopted was supported by groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen, and by the bill's sponsors themselves. I would also like to enter into the record a portion of a March 1, 1998 Washington Post editorial that said,'' The (Snowe-Jeffords) amendment was a reminder of how good a bill might be in reach if only there were the political will, and willing leadership, to write it.'' The editorial went on to say that ``that's the sort of compromise that the legislative process at its best produces.'' I am pleased that a provision based directly on that amendment is now included in the McCain-Feingold bill being introduced today, and of which I am an original cosponsor. I think the provision strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill in terms of providing balance and more comprehensive approach to reform. Mr. President, I have stood on the Senate floor and spoken of the burgeoning problem this bill seeks to address. And I have said that, if we do nothing, the situation will only get worse. Well, it has gotten worse, and let me just take a moment before describing what the bill will do to detail why this bill is necessary in the first place. What I'm talking about here are broadcast advertisements the sole purpose of which is to influence federal elections, but that require no disclosure and have none of the restrictions that for decades have been placed on other forms of campaigning. These are broadcast ads that masquerade as informational or educational, but are really ``stealth advocacy'' ads for or against candidates. According to estimates by the Annenberg Public Policy center which has been extensively studying this trend, in the 2000 elections over $400 million was spent on these so-called ``issue ads''--many of which are blatant attempts to influence federal elections, and everyone knows it. And that number--which is four times what was estimated for the last presidential election cycle, I might add, may be just the tip of the iceberg. Because we simply don't know all the money that's being spent. So how do we address the problem? The Snowe-Jeffords approach is simple and straightforward. First, we require disclosure on all groups and individuals running broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of any election that mention the name of a federal candidate. And second, a ban on the use of union or corporate treasury money to pay for these ads. That's what this boils down to, Mr. President. Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. In fact, nothing in this bill prevents anyone from running any ads at any time saying anything they want. All we say is, if you spend more than $10,000 per year on these broadcast ads you can't use union or corporation money. That's the only ban on anything in this bill. And we require you to disclose who is bankrolling the ads if they give $500 or more. We developed this approach in consultation with noted constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute Joshua Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, and Daniel Ortiz, John Allan Love Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. The bill is narrowly and carefully crafted, and based on the precept that the Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional purposes, campaigning--which make no mistake, these ads do--is different from other speech. Corporations have been banned from direct involvement in campaigns since the Tillman Act of 1907--unions were first addressed in the Smith-Connally Act of 1943 and the prohibition was finally made permanent in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act. Under Snowe-Jeffords, unions and corporations still have a voice in federal elections through the appropriate avenue--a political action committee to which individuals voluntarily contribute up to the amount allowed by law. They just can't use unlimited shareholder monies or money from union coffers to fund the ads--a logical extension of current law. As for disclosure, the Brennan Center analysis has concluded that, ``Congress is permitted to demand that the sponsor of an electioneering message disclose the amount spent on the message and the sources of the funds.'' It has been said in the past that this measure prohibits running these ads altogether. In point of fact, anyone can run any ad saying anything they want at any time. They simply must not use union or corporate treasury money within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election, and they must let us know who paid for them. Is that too much to ask? The fact is, Mr. President, we are burying our heads in the sand if we do nothing about this problem. It is clearly taking elections out of the hands of individuals and of candidates. Certainly, there are some legitimate issue ads out there. They are truly designed to inform the public, or advocate a particular position. We don't effect these ads one iota. We don't want to effect these ads. And certainly, people have a right to disagree with candidates, and even attack their positions. That is why nothing in this bill prevents people from doing so. All we say is that we ought to know who is paying for these ads, and that they should not be paid for with union or corporation money--like any other activity that is influencing a federal election. Again, the bill only requires disclosure for large donors to all groups spending more than $10,000 on ads running 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. And it only bans union and corporation treasury money from funding such ads, based on the 1907 and 1947 laws I mention earlier. This approach has garnered majority support from the Senate in the past and in light of the previous elections it deserves even greater support today. We need balanced, meaningful, and comprehensive campaign finance reform, and this bill is a vital component. I urge its consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague form Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, to reintroduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. Today is the 28th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision-- an anniversary which makes it especially poignant to reintroduce EPICC today. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year--half of all pregnancies that occur every year in this country. And frighteningly, approximately half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. I am firmly pro-choice and I believe in a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion when she needs this procedure. But I want abortion to be an option that a woman rarely needs. The simplest and most effective means of reducing the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in America. And the safest and most effective means of preventing unintended pregnancies are with prescription contraceptives. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, they treat prescription contraceptives very differently. In fact, half of large group plans exclude coverage of contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral contraceptives--the most popular form of reversible birth control. When one realizes the insurance ``carve-out'' for these prescriptions and related outpatient treatments, it is no longer a mystery why women spend 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs. No woman should have to forgo or rely on inexpensive and less effective contraceptives for purely economic reasons, knowing that she risks an unintended pregnancy. For the last three years Congress has required the health plans participating in the Federal Employees Heath Benefit Program--the largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan in the country--to provide prescription contraceptive coverage if they cover prescription drugs as a part of their benefits package. The protections we afford to Members of Congress, their staff, other federal employees and annuitants, and to the approximately two million women of reproductive age who are participating in FEHBP need and deserve to be extended to the rest of the country. Last December 13, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that excluding contraceptives from health insurance plans is a violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires equal treatment of women ``affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,'' in all aspects of employment, including fringe benefits. The EEOC said that the Act also protects women against discrimination because they have the ability to become pregnant, not just because they are already pregnant. According to the EEOC's ruling, excluding contraceptives also amounts to sex discrimination because these prescriptions are available only for women. Furthermore, excluding contraceptives due to possible increased costs is not valid--under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Congress specifically rejected costs as a defense. Unfortunately, the ruling only applies to the two cases examined by the EEOC and is not a general ``policy guidance'' that would apply to all employers. These two particular health plans must cover contraceptives, the ruling said, because they already cover a wide range of preventive services, including vaccinations, drugs to control blood pressure, weight loss medication and preventive dental care. Another health plan--one that doesn't cover these services--might not be in violation of the law. But most health plans cover similar services, and the decision announced in December could be used by other women who seek coverage from their employers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act--and this EEOC decision--only reaches employers of 15 people or more. The Equity in Prescription Insurance Contraceptive Coverage Act reaches all insurance plans, no matter the size, and includes individual insurance--not just employer- sponsored insurance plans. The time has come for Congress to act, once and for all, to ensure equity in prescription insurance coverage. The EEOC's decision provides a powerful impetus for action in Congress, and demonstrates the degree of concern through the nation about unfair and discriminatory prescription practices. The EEOC decision highlights the problem; I believe passage of our legislation in Congress is the solution. Unfortunately, the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of their most basic health care needs, even though other prescription drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. Less than half--49 percent--of all large-group health care plans cover any contraceptive method at all and only 15 percent cover the five most common reversible birth control methods. HMOs are more likely to cover contraceptives, but only 39 percent cover all five reversible methods. And ironically, 86 percent of large group plans, preferred provider organizations, and HMOs cover sterilization and between 66 and 70 percent of these different plans do cover abortion. Thirteen states require their state-regulated health plans to coverage prescription contraceptive: Maryland, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Vermont, California, Delaware, Iowa, Rhode Island, and my home state of Maine. We need to ensure that this protection is expanded to all states. The concept underlying EPICC is simple. This legislation says that if insurers cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And in conjunction with this, EPICC requires health plans which already cover basic health care services to also cover outpatient services related to prescription contraceptives. The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription drugs. What the bill does say is that if insurers cover prescription drugs, they cannot carve prescription contraceptives out of their formularies. And it says that insurers which cover outpatient health care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use. This bill is good health policy. By helping families to adequately space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy pregnancies and healthy births, reduce rates of maternal complications, and reduces the possibility of low-birthweight births. Furthermore, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. And all methods of reversible contraceptives are cost-effective when compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. A sexually active women who uses no contraception costs the health care provider an average of $3,225 in a given year. The average cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery in 1993 was approximately $6,400. and for every 100 women who do not use contraceptives in a given year, 85 percent will become pregnant. Why do insurance companies exclude prescription contraceptive coverage from their list of covered benefits--especially when they cover other prescription drugs? The tendency of insurance plans to cover sterilization and abortion reflects, in part, their long-standing tendency to cover surgery and treatment over prevention. But insurers do not feel compelled to cover prescription contraceptives because they know that most women who lack contraceptive coverage will simply pay for them out of pocket. And in order to prevent an unintended pregnancy, a women needs to be on some from of birth control for almost 30 years of her life. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act tells insurance companies that we can no longer tolerate policies that disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the process. The philosophy behind the bill is that contraceptives should be treated no differently than any other prescription drug or device. It does not give contraceptives any type of special insurance coverage, but instead seeks to achieve equity of treatment and parity of coverage. For that reason, the bill specifies that if a plan imposes a deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription drugs or devices, it can impose the same deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription contraception. But it cannot charge a higher cost- sharing requirement or deductible on contraceptives. Outpatient contraceptive services must also be treated similarly to general outpatient health care services. Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will benefit countless Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill along with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, to ensure that we will have balanced, comprehensive campaign finance reform that doesn't close one loophole while leaving another open. It is a bipartisan approach to a burgeoning segment of undisclosed and unregulated campaign activity that will only get worse if left unchecked. Mr. President, the bill I am offering is based on a provision this body added to the McCain-Feingold bill three years ago, and a bill we introduced in the 106th Congress. With that amendment, the Senate finally went on record as having a majority in support of campaign finance reform. In fact, 53 senators cast a vote supporting the combined approach of a soft money ban and a sound, constitutional approach to addressing a veritable explosion in unregulated, so-called ``issue ads''. Senator Jeffords and I crafted this measure because we wanted campaign finance reform; we wanted a bill that represented the best possible policy; and we wanted a package that could bridge the political gap that had opened between supporters and opponents. On the one hand, we had Republicans concerned that McCain-Feingold, as it stood, might not have done enough to focus on the use of the union dues for political purposes. On the other hand, we had Democrats who didn't want unions signaled out and wanted corporate money to be addressed as well. That's the context in which we set out to carefully construct a measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny, address some of the most egregious abuses, and focus on areas where we know the Supreme Court has already allowed us to go--disclosure, and a prohibition on union and corporation money for electioneering. Indeed, the compromise language eventually adopted was supported by groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen, and by the bill's sponsors themselves. I would also like to enter into the record a portion of a March 1, 1998 Washington Post editorial that said,'' The (Snowe-Jeffords) amendment was a reminder of how good a bill might be in reach if only there were the political will, and willing leadership, to write it.'' The editorial went on to say that ``that's the sort of compromise that the legislative process at its best produces.'' I am pleased that a provision based directly on that amendment is now included in the McCain-Feingold bill being introduced today, and of which I am an original cosponsor. I think the provision strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill in terms of providing balance and more comprehensive approach to reform. Mr. President, I have stood on the Senate floor and spoken of the burgeoning problem this bill seeks to address. And I have said that, if we do nothing, the situation will only get worse. Well, it has gotten worse, and let me just take a moment before describing what the bill will do to detail why this bill is necessary in the first place. What I'm talking about here are broadcast advertisements the sole purpose of which is to influence federal elections, but that require no disclosure and have none of the restrictions that for decades have been placed on other forms of campaigning. These are broadcast ads that masquerade as informational or educational, but are really ``stealth advocacy'' ads for or against candidates. According to estimates by the Annenberg Public Policy center which has been extensively studying this trend, in the 2000 elections over $400 million was spent on these so-called ``issue ads''--many of which are blatant attempts to influence federal elections, and everyone knows it. And that number--which is four times what was estimated for the last presidential election cycle, I might add, may be just the tip of the iceberg. Because we simply don't know all the money that's being spent. So how do we address the problem? The Snowe-Jeffords approach is simple and straightforward. First, we require disclosure on all groups and individuals running broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of any election that mention the name of a federal candidate. And second, a ban on the use of union or corporate treasury money to pay for these ads. That's what this boils down to, Mr. President. Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. In fact, nothing in this bill prevents anyone from running any ads at any time saying anything they want. All we say is, if you spend more than $10,000 per year on these broadcast ads you can't use union or corporation money. That's the only ban on anything in this bill. And we require you to disclose who is bankrolling the ads if they give $500 or more. We developed this approach in consultation with noted constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute Joshua Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, and Daniel Ortiz, John Allan Love Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. The bill is narrowly and carefully crafted, and based on the precept that the Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional purposes, campaigning--which make no mistake, these ads do--is different from other speech. Corporations have been banned from direct involvement in campaigns since the Tillman Act of 1907--unions were first addressed in the Smith-Connally Act of 1943 and the prohibition was finally made permanent in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act. Under Snowe-Jeffords, unions and corporations still have a voice in federal elections through the appropriate avenue--a political action committee to which individuals voluntarily contribute up to the amount allowed by law. They just can't use unlimited shareholder monies or money from union coffers to fund the ads--a logical extension of current law. As for disclosure, the Brennan Center analysis has concluded that, ``Congress is permitted to demand that the sponsor of an electioneering message disclose the amount spent on the message and the sources of the funds.'' It has been said in the past that this measure prohibits running these ads altogether. In point of fact, anyone can run any ad saying anything they want at any time. They simply must not use union or corporate treasury money within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election, and they must let us know who paid for them. Is that too much to ask? The fact is, Mr. President, we are burying our heads in the sand if we do nothing about this problem. It is clearly taking elections out of the hands of individuals and of candidates. Certainly, there are some legitimate issue ads out there. They are truly designed to inform the public, or advocate a particular position. We don't effect these ads one iota. We don't want to effect these ads. And certainly, people have a right to disagree with candidates, and even attack their positions. That is why nothing in this bill prevents people from doing so. All we say is that we ought to know who is paying for these ads, and that they should not be paid for with union or corporation money--like any other activity that is influencing a federal election. Again, the bill only requires disclosure for large donors to all groups spending more than $10,000 on ads running 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. And it only bans union and corporation treasury money from funding such ads, based on the 1907 and 1947 laws I mention earlier. This approach has garnered majority support from the Senate in the past and in light of the previous elections it deserves even greater support today. We need balanced, meaningful, and comprehensive campaign finance reform, and this bill is a vital component. I urge its consideration.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague form Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, to reintroduce the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. Today is the 28th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision-- an anniversary which makes it especially poignant to reintroduce EPICC today. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year--half of all pregnancies that occur every year in this country. And frighteningly, approximately half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. I am firmly pro-choice and I believe in a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion when she needs this procedure. But I want abortion to be an option that a woman rarely needs. The simplest and most effective means of reducing the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in America. And the safest and most effective means of preventing unintended pregnancies are with prescription contraceptives. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, they treat prescription contraceptives very differently. In fact, half of large group plans exclude coverage of contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral contraceptives--the most popular form of reversible birth control. When one realizes the insurance ``carve-out'' for these prescriptions and related outpatient treatments, it is no longer a mystery why women spend 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs. No woman should have to forgo or rely on inexpensive and less effective contraceptives for purely economic reasons, knowing that she risks an unintended pregnancy. For the last three years Congress has required the health plans participating in the Federal Employees Heath Benefit Program--the largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan in the country--to provide prescription contraceptive coverage if they cover prescription drugs as a part of their benefits package. The protections we afford to Members of Congress, their staff, other federal employees and annuitants, and to the approximately two million women of reproductive age who are participating in FEHBP need and deserve to be extended to the rest of the country. Last December 13, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that excluding contraceptives from health insurance plans is a violation of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires equal treatment of women ``affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,'' in all aspects of employment, including fringe benefits. The EEOC said that the Act also protects women against discrimination because they have the ability to become pregnant, not just because they are already pregnant. According to the EEOC's ruling, excluding contraceptives also amounts to sex discrimination because these prescriptions are available only for women. Furthermore, excluding contraceptives due to possible increased costs is not valid--under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Congress specifically rejected costs as a defense. Unfortunately, the ruling only applies to the two cases examined by the EEOC and is not a general ``policy guidance'' that would apply to all employers. These two particular health plans must cover contraceptives, the ruling said, because they already cover a wide range of preventive services, including vaccinations, drugs to control blood pressure, weight loss medication and preventive dental care. Another health plan--one that doesn't cover these services--might not be in violation of the law. But most health plans cover similar services, and the decision announced in December could be used by other women who seek coverage from their employers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act--and this EEOC decision--only reaches employers of 15 people or more. The Equity in Prescription Insurance Contraceptive Coverage Act reaches all insurance plans, no matter the size, and includes individual insurance--not just employer- sponsored insurance plans. The time has come for Congress to act, once and for all, to ensure equity in prescription insurance coverage. The EEOC's decision provides a powerful impetus for action in Congress, and demonstrates the degree of concern through the nation about unfair and discriminatory prescription practices. The EEOC decision highlights the problem; I believe passage of our legislation in Congress is the solution. Unfortunately, the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of their most basic health care needs, even though other prescription drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. Less than half--49 percent--of all large-group health care plans cover any contraceptive method at all and only 15 percent cover the five most common reversible birth control methods. HMOs are more likely to cover contraceptives, but only 39 percent cover all five reversible methods. And ironically, 86 percent of large group plans, preferred provider organizations, and HMOs cover sterilization and between 66 and 70 percent of these different plans do cover abortion. Thirteen states require their state-regulated health plans to coverage prescription contraceptive: Maryland, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Vermont, California, Delaware, Iowa, Rhode Island, and my home state of Maine. We need to ensure that this protection is expanded to all states. The concept underlying EPICC is simple. This legislation says that if insurers cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And in conjunction with this, EPICC requires health plans which already cover basic health care services to also cover outpatient services related to prescription contraceptives. The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription drugs. What the bill does say is that if insurers cover prescription drugs, they cannot carve prescription contraceptives out of their formularies. And it says that insurers which cover outpatient health care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use. This bill is good health policy. By helping families to adequately space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy pregnancies and healthy births, reduce rates of maternal complications, and reduces the possibility of low-birthweight births. Furthermore, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. And all methods of reversible contraceptives are cost-effective when compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. A sexually active women who uses no contraception costs the health care provider an average of $3,225 in a given year. The average cost of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery in 1993 was approximately $6,400. and for every 100 women who do not use contraceptives in a given year, 85 percent will become pregnant. Why do insurance companies exclude prescription contraceptive coverage from their list of covered benefits--especially when they cover other prescription drugs? The tendency of insurance plans to cover sterilization and abortion reflects, in part, their long-standing tendency to cover surgery and treatment over prevention. But insurers do not feel compelled to cover prescription contraceptives because they know that most women who lack contraceptive coverage will simply pay for them out of pocket. And in order to prevent an unintended pregnancy, a women needs to be on some from of birth control for almost 30 years of her life. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act tells insurance companies that we can no longer tolerate policies that disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the process. The philosophy behind the bill is that contraceptives should be treated no differently than any other prescription drug or device. It does not give contraceptives any type of special insurance coverage, but instead seeks to achieve equity of treatment and parity of coverage. For that reason, the bill specifies that if a plan imposes a deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription drugs or devices, it can impose the same deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription contraception. But it cannot charge a higher cost- sharing requirement or deductible on contraceptives. Outpatient contraceptive services must also be treated similarly to general outpatient health care services. Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will benefit countless Americans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, to introduce the Building, Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools (BRICKS) Act--legislation that would address our nation's burgeoning need for K-12 school construction, renovation, and repair. The legislation--which is endorsed by the National Education Association and National PTA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education--would accomplish this in a fiscally-responsible manner while seeking to find the middle ground between those who support a very direct, active federal role in school construction, and those who are concerned about an expanded federal role in what has been--and remains--a state and local responsibility. Mr. President, 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 in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools need 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 build 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. Mr. President, 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. Accordingly, I am pleased that recent efforts in the Congress have increased federal funding for IDEA by approximately $3.8 billion over the past five years, 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 do more to assist state and local governments in addressing their school construction needs without infringing on local control. Mr. President, the legislation we are offering today--the ``BRICKS Act''--will do just that. Specifically, it addresses our nation's school construction needs in a responsible fiscal manner while bridging the gap between those who advocate a more activist federal role in school construction and those who do not. First, our legislation will provide $20 billion in federal loans to support school construction, renovation, and repair at the local level. By designating that at least one-half of these loan monies must be used to pay the interest owed to bondholders on new school construction bonds that are issued through the year 2003, the federal government will leverage the issuing of new bonds by states and localities that would not otherwise be made. In addition, by providing that up to one- half of the monies may be used for state-wide school construction initiatives, the bill provides needed flexibility to ensure that unique state and local approaches to school construction will also be supported, such as revolving loan funds. 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, there will be no requirement that states engage in a lengthy application process that does not even assure them of their rightful share of the $20 billion pot. Second, our bill ensures that these loans are made by the federal government in a fiscally responsible manner that does not cut into the Social Security surplus or claim a portion of non-Social Security surpluses that may prove ephemeral in the future. Specifically, our bill would make these loans to states from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)--a fund that was created through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and has grown to hold more than $40 billion in assets. The principal activity of the fund--which is controlled solely by the Secretary of the Treasury--is foreign exchange intervention that is intended to limit fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the fund has also been used to provide stabilization loans to foreign countries, including a $20 billion line of credit to Mexico in 1995 to support the peso. In light of the controversial manner in which the ESF has been used, some have argued that additional constraints should be placed on the fund. Still others--including former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey--have stated that, for various reasons, the fund should be liquidated. Regardless of how one feels about exercising greater constraint over the ESF or liquidating it, I believe that if this $40 billion fund can be used to bailout foreign currencies, it certainly can be used to help America's schools. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that the $20 billion in loans provided by my legislation will be made from the ESF--an amount identical to the line of credit that was extended to Mexico by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1995. Of importance, these loans will be made from the ESF on a progressive, annual basis--not in a sudden or immediate manner. Furthermore, these monies will be repaid to the fund to ensure that the ESF is compensated for the loans it makes. Although the ESF will recoup all of the monies it lends, it should also be noted that my proposal ensures that states and local governments will not be forced to pay excessive interest, or that they will be forced to repay over an unreasonable period of time. In fact, if the federal government fails to substantially increase its share of IDEA funding, states will incur no interest at all! Specifically, to encourage the federal government to meet its funding commitment for IDEA--and to compensate states for the fact that every dollar in forgone IDEA funding is a dollar less that they have for school construction or other local needs--our bill 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. Mr. President, by providing low-interest loans to states and local governments to support school construction, I believe that our bill represents a fiscally-responsible, centrist solution to a national problem. For those who support a direct, active federal role in school construction, our bill provides substantial federal assistance by dedicating $20 billion to leverage a significant amount of new school construction bonds. For those who are concerned about the federal government becoming overly-engaged in an historically state and local responsibility--and thereby stepping on local control--my bill directs that the monies provided to states will be repaid, and that no onerous applications or demands are placed on states to receive their share of these monies. Mr. President, I urge that my colleagues support the ``BRICKS Act''-- legislation that is intended to bridge the gap between competing philosophies on the federal role in school construction. Ultimately, if we work together, we can 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support from the NEA, PTA, NASBE, and Jim Rier, the Chairman of the Maine State Board of Education, be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved adopted son of Maine, James Russell Wiggins, whose life brought tremendous pride to our State, credit to the profession of journalism, and joy to all those fortunate to have known him. For all of us, a great many people pass through our lives. Few clearly and completely present us with the qualities to which we instinctively know we should aspire. Few truly define and embody the standards to which all of us should hold ourselves, and it is a blessing when we find them. James Russell Wiggins was instantly recognizable as such a person, and I was blessed to have found him nearly 23 years ago. While his heart has ceased to beat after nearly 97 extraordinary years, his spirit continues to enkindle the hearts of all those whose lives he touched with his warmth, his enthusiasm, and his generosity. Russ Wiggins cast his light most broadly and brightly through the medium of the printed word, and perhaps most prominently in his 20-year career with The Washington Post. Difficult as it may be to believe today, there was a time when the Post was not widely held in high regard, even in its own hometown. That the Post is internationally recognized today is a testament to the vision of a man for whom the public's right to the best possible information was paramount and integral to the health of our democracy. Eventually reaching the position of editor, Russ Wiggins' stamp remains on every new edition of the Post. As Stephen Rosenfield, former editorial page editor of The Washington Post, wrote after Russ Wiggins' passing, he ``brought to the Washington Post a passion for newspapering and an unrelenting dedication to the public good . . . (he) set for his staff an unmatched standard of personal decency and integrity.'' Just a few weeks shy of his 65th birthday, and his planned retirement from the Post, Russ Wiggins was tapped by President Johnson to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. What would normally be a fitting and distinguished finale to a long and productive working life would become only a prelude to his passion for the years that remained--a weekly newspaper called The Ellsworth American in Ellsworth, Maine. Russ moved to the state in 1969, and became publisher and editor of The Ellsworth American shortly thereafter, building it into one of the most respected weekly newspapers in Maine and the Nation, and a great treasure for both the community and our state. As if that were not enough for a man ``in retirement'', he also became an active and integral member of his new community of Brooklin, lending his boundless energy and enthusiasm to a variety of civic causes. I first met Russ Wiggins during my first campaign for Congress in 1977 at an editorial board meeting at the paper. He put me immediately at ease with his remarkable personality and wit, and I was immensely impressed with his extraordinary depth of knowledge. As I would come to discover, Russ Wiggins had an appetite for learning for which the term ``voracious'' may well be an inadequate description. He loved ideas, and loved testing his ideas against the opinion of others. He exemplified the concept of disagreeing without being disagreeable--he was the definition of a gentleman, and a practitioner of the kind of civility that all-too-often seems an old fashioned notion these days but, in reality, is needed now more than ever. His excitement over knowledge was infectious, never pretentious. If he was energized by a book he had just read, he would implore others to do likewise. He challenged people not only to assess their own beliefs, but to risk undermining those beliefs with the addition of new facts, new arguments, and new ways of seeing the world. In short, he enriched the minds and souls of all those who knew him, and encouraged everyone he met to rise to their potential. On that day when I first met Russ, an Ellsworth American photographer chronicled our discussion, particularly my reaction to Russ' comments. The images from that meeting later formed the basis of my first campaign poster--which hangs today in my Washington office and serves as a reminder of the time I spent with him and the example he set for the rest of us. And what a tremendous example that was. Russell never strayed from his beliefs and integrity, as demonstrated by the high regard with which he was held among his contemporaries. And with his unparalleled skill, he captured the essence of the people he called his neighbors. During his time with the Ellsworth American, he was able to bring out not just the news of Ellsworth and Hancock County, but also to convey the sensibilities and nature of a special region. Perhaps it is the fact that Russ saw and experienced so much of the world, that he continually showed that the rural coastal setting of Downeast Maine is anything but circumstanced. Whatever the reason, those of us in Maine are especially fortunate that he let us see the dynamic world through his eyes. Throughout it all, James Russell Wiggins was comfortable in any company, not because he changed his stripes to suit the occasion, but because the essence of the man was always his generosity of spirit--and it was apparent for all to see. He shared what he knew not to elevate his own standing, but rather to elevate the standing of others. He voiced his opinions not to hear himself talk, but rather to advance the level of debate. He searched for the truth not in service to his own ends, but rather in service to humankind. With his life having touched so many so deeply, it is no surprise that his death has done the same. Columns were written by those with whom he had worked. Katherine Graham, chair of the executive committee of The Washington Post, wrote a special piece eulogizing Russ and thanking him for his service. And letters to the editor expressed the sense of loss we all have felt in the wake of this giant's passing. So it is with a heavy but grateful heart that I pay whatever humble tribute I might to this great man whom I was privileged to know. How fortunate we are that he lived--and how deeply we will miss him in our lives. I ask that a number of articles that have appeared in the newspapers regarding Russ Wiggins be printed in the Record. The articles follow. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2000] The Evocation of Excellence (By Katherine Graham) Russ Wiggins, good steward, farseeing guide of The Post for 21 years. Russ Wiggins's death yesterday leaves a large hole, so great was his embracing personality and a life lived vigorously until five months ago, when his brave heart started to weaken and then gave out. I feel grateful to Russ because he quite literally created The Post we know today. The Pentagon Papers and Watergate received so much attention that most people don't realize what Russ accomplished. When my father purchased The Post in 1933, it was the fifth newspaper in a five-newspaper town. He set out to improve The Post and make it viable because he believed Washington deserved a top-quality morning newspaper. However, it was difficult to get people to come to work for a paper most people assumed would fail. My father had found a good, old- fashioned, blood-and-guts editor, who began to make some progress. But clearly more was needed. When my husband, Phil Graham, became publisher after the war, he and my father tried to find a serious editor and leader for the future. They heard of Russ Wiggins, who had been editor of the paper in St. Paul, Minn., where he'd made quite an impression. When some people accused its owner- publisher of being dependent on Russ, the man had walked into the newsroom and summarily fired Russ. My father and Phil asked Russ to come to The Post, but he elected instead to go to the New York Times as assistant to the publisher. A year later they went back and persuaded Russ to change his mind. He arrived in 1947 and stayed for 21 years. Russ immediately made several changes that had a significant impact on the quality and integrity of the paper. First, he eliminated taking favors--free tickets for sports reporters, free admissions to theaters for critics and parking tickets fixed by police reporters for people all over the building. This sounds elementary, but in those days it was done everywhere. One of Russ's most heroic accomplishments was to lead the way in civil rights. He stopped the use of irrelevant racial descriptions. He printed the first picture of an African American bride. He started hiring minority reporters. This took courage in those days. Despite the paper's precarious financial situation, Russ and Phil together began to assemble a fine staff--attracted by Russ's won professional standards and hard work. He set the example. He worked seven days a week, if necessary, and rarely took vacations. Over the years, Russ stood up to many threats to the paper, and he and Phil overcame many obstacles. Not the least was my mother, whose correct but inflammatory political passions encouraged charges of red-baiting. As we grew more successful, Russ built up a national and foreign staff. His ambition for the paper, Russ told me, ``was unachievable. But how do you lift an institution except with unachievable ideals? If your ideals are so low you can achieve them, you ought to adjust them,'' he said. When my husband became mentally ill with manic depression, Russ had to withstand Phil's destructive impulses. When Phil died, Russ held the staff together and encouraged my coming to work. Then he had to teach me how to understand editorial and news policy, which didn't happen overnight. Russ was very patient. One of the first major issues we confronted was the Vietnam war. Russ was a thoughtful and sensitive hawk; he believed the country's reputation was at stake if we abandoned our allies. At one point, President Johnson said one of Russ's editorials was worth two divisions. Russ was never personally hostile about issues. This enabled us to get though this difficult period. At all times, Russ was a voracious and learned reader. He often would thrust books at all of us, tell us we had to read them, and check in a day or two to see if we had finished. Just a few years ago, Russ informed me in a letter that he had just completed Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's autobiography, was up to Volume 4 of Edward Gibbon's ``Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'' and also had read the 35,000-word Unabomber manifesto. It was repetitious, Russ commented. Russ set a deadline for himself to retire at 65. A few months before, President Johnson nominated him as ambassador to the United Nations. Russ insisted on leaving without much ceremony. Then Russ did the most admirable thing of all: He went to Ellsworth, Maine, where he had vacationed, bought the paper there and built it up into one of the most distinguished small papers in the country. He wrote a poem for it every week. And he never lost his creative editorial spirit. To point out the deficiencies of the post office, for instance, he mailed a letter to Ellsworth from a neighboring town and had two oxen pull a cart that beat the letter. Even after he'd left The Post, Russ remained one of our most interested readers and staunchest supporters. Shortly after the Janet Cooke story erupted, Russ came to a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, where we were being drubbed right and left. With his usual wry humor, Russ said, ``I feel great about the state of the American press. Every editor I saw assured me this couldn't have happened at his paper.'' Russ lived his entire life according to the highest intellectual and moral standards, with great humor and compassion for others, and with panache. He was thoughtful--I would even say brilliant. The words he evokes are ``excellence'' and ``integrity.'' He had fun and he gave it to others. He was a teacher and a friend to the very end. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 20, 2000] James Russell Wiggins Almost the minute he took over as managing editor of this newspaper in 1947, James Russell Wiggins jolted the city room staff with his passion for rectitude and integrity. No more freebies, he decreed, not even movie passes for copy aides. No more fixing of tickets at police headquarters. These were not the crotchety preachings of a fuddy-duddy; Russ Wiggins, who died yesterday at the age of 96, was a vigorous and engaged editor who cared deeply about ethical standards, old- fashioned honesty and the importance of a free and independent press. During his 21-year stewardship here, his enthusiasm for the competitive pursuit of information was girded by an insistence on fairness. Today the news and editorial departments at The Post are independently managed. In Mr. Wiggins' day, though, both fell under his exacting command; he took care to maintain a sharp delineation. ``The ideal newspaperman,'' he told the staff, ``is a man who never forgets that he is a reporter . . . not a mover and shaker. . . . Nothing could be more alarming or dismaying to me . . . than to encounter repeatedly the suggestion that the reader knows from the news columns what the views of the newspaper are.'' The reporter ought to have the commitment ``of the honest witness, the fair narrator,'' he said. A largely self-educated, extraordinarily well-read man who never went to college, Mr. Wiggins kept reporters and editorial writers alike on their toes--quizzing them on findings, recommending books and suggesting further questions or research. Cartoonist Herblock remembers showing sketches to Mr. Wiggins, who might argue about the views and then say, ``God knows, I tried to reason with you''--and let them go. Mr. Wiggins' own editorial views, often churned out in bunches on a given day, were no fence-sitters. He railed against the evils of gambling, the dangers of a large national debt, restrictions on the press and the slowness of mail service. Mr. Wiggins left the Post more than three decades ago. But that's not to say he retired. As publisher of the Ellsworth American in Maine, Mr. Wiggins worked and wrote and read on; and he kept up correspondence with this newspaper, exchanging ideas, complimenting an occasional piece and reprimanding us for certain stands taken. We paid attention, too. To the end, Russ Wiggins was extraordinarily important to this newspaper.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the lack of commitment for forward funding for the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. Mr. President, as you know, LIHEAP is a block grant program to the states to assist needy households with energy assistance. Since FY1999, the program has been funded at $1.1 billion, plus $300 million for weather emergencies. I am pleased to note that, through our efforts, the Labor-HHS Conference Report provides $1.4 billion for FY2001, with a contingency fund of $300 million for emergencies. To my great dismay, however, the $1.4 million provided to help the States budget for next winter--the winter of 2001-2002--was cut from the final package. We need to face the fact that our nation is budgeting by emergency when it comes to making sure that our low-income citizens, particularly the elderly, can keep warm in the winter. This past year, there were four different releases of the FY2000 emergency funds, most of which were released by mid-February, 2000. Currently, there is only $155,650,000 remaining in the FY2000 emergency funds and I am aware that the White House is coming to a decision soon as to how to dispense these much-needed funds. I have joined many of my colleagues at different times over the past year urging these releases along with the currently needed release. I have also urged an increase in the regular funding for the States programs, along with forward funding for the next fiscal year so that the States can appropriately budget for each successive year so as to extend the benefits to as many eligible people in need as possible. Currently, Mr. President, Maine's LIHEAP program has borrowed from the State's ``rainy day fund'' in the hopes that the State would ultimately get paid back. Today is December 15--two and a half months into the fiscal year--and they are still waiting. Because the Legislature had the foresight to lend out this money, the Community Action Agencies were able to get funding to LIHEAP beneficiaries last July so they could buy home heating oil when it was cheaper. Like last winter, Maine's LIHEAP program is currently receiving an extraordinary amount of applications for help. Anticipating a colder winter and higher prices this winter, the State has budgeted to accommodate more applications--they have already processed over 26,000--but to do this, they have had to reduce the benefit from $488 last year down to $350 currently. They are hearing that, because of the high prices--as high as $1.63 per gallon--the $350 does not allow LIHEAP recipients to fill their oil tank even once as we move into the colder New England winter months ahead. We have a critical problem facing the country in the upcoming winter months, Mr. President. It is said that misery loves company, and it is my sense that, given the skyrocketing natural gas prices being experienced by all parts of the country, the Northeast will have lots of company this winter as more and more constituents with low incomes, particularly the fixed-income elderly, worry about where the money will come from to pay their heating bills to keep warm. This is a very unhealthy situation. I have spent this entire year appealing for more LIHEAP funding to protect the most vulnerable members of our society so they will have energy assistance when they need it most. I will continue to do so in the next Congress in the hopes that we will all step up to the plate and not only increase the overall LIHEAP funding but to forward fund the program so the states an be fiscally responsible and accommodate as many people as possible with this vital benefit. The ongoing problem continues to be one of supply and demand as natural gas and heating oil inventories remain historically low, and the increased costs caused by this imbalance will not right itself in time for the cold winter weather when demand will rise sharply. This situation prices the low-income households right out of the market and they find themselves making ``Solomon choices'' for heating or eating, or by cutting down on necessary and costly prescription drugs. It is logical that when costs are doubled, those served by the LIHEAP program are decreased by the same amount. And, we should keep in mind that only around 13 percent of households that are eligible for the LIHEAP program actually even receive Federal assistance. Colder weather, higher costs and tighter budgets could have the effect of raising this percentage upward. Because Maine received over $5.3 million in emergency LIHEAP funds this past winter, my State was able to increase the income limits to serve more eligible residents with their high energy costs. Maine was able to increase the income guidelines to 170 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines and assist over 50,400 households with a fuel assistance benefit averaging $488, almost twice last year's $261. Mr. President, I look forward to working with you on increased long- range funding that will allow the Community Action Agencies in Maine and other States' LIHEAP programs to plan and budget in advance, so that as many energy needs are addressed as possible. I hope my colleagues will join me next year in efforts for increasing funds so that our States can budget for a safety net that can be extended to as many low-income citizens as possible--and to make sure they do not find themselves literally out in the cold.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 1653, which includes the Pribilof Islands Transition Act and the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. This bill contains a number of ocean, coastal, and fisheries related titles that will result in major conservation gains for our nation's marine resources at a time when we are placing enormous demands on them. The bill not only attempts to provide additional environmental protections through a number of state and local programs, but also tools for better management. Title I of this bill is the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. The Alaskan Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea were a former reserve for harvesting fur seals. The Commerce Department, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been involved in municipal and social services on the islands since 1910. In 1983, NOAA tried to remove themselves from administering these programs. However, despite the $20 million in funds the Pribilof Islands received to replace future annual Federal appropriations, the Pribilof Islanders claim that the terms of the transition process were not met and the withdrawal failed. This title authorizes $28 million over five years to again attempt to achieve the orderly withdrawal of NOAA from the civil administration of the Pribilof Islands. Additionally, it authorizes $10 million a year for five years for NOAA to complete its environmental cleanup and landfill closure obligations prior to the final transfer of federal property to the six local entities. The Pribilof Islands have historically been a very expensive program to the American taxpayers. Congress expects that this title will provide a final termination of NOAA's municipal and social service responsibilities on the islands and a distinct end to federal taxpayer funding of those services. Title II of this bill is the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. It is based on legislation that I first introduced over three years ago and S. 725, a bill that I introduced earlier in the 106th Congress along with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. Over the last decade, the United States had been leading a focused effort to conserve and manage coral reef ecosystems. The plight of coral reefs, both in the United States and internationally, gained much attention in 1997, the International Year of the Reef. One very successful program undertaken during the year-long event involved grants to local groups to build grassroots support for coral reef conservation, management, and educational programs. Since that time, NOAA has steadily improved coral reef management programs utilizing the full range of existing statutory authorities including the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These complementary authorities provide the framework for comprehensive coral reef conservation and management. Working in partnership with the States and other agencies, NOAA has demonstrated its unique ability among the federal agencies to effectively manage these valuable resources. This title will augment the tools already available and provides an outline to assist NOAA as it moves forward with coral reef ecosystem management plans. It requires the creation of a national coral reef action strategy. Of particular note is the use of marine protected areas to serve as replenishment zones. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has called for setting aside 20 percent of coral reefs in each region of the United States that contains reefs as no-take areas. However, many of the U.S. islands that have coral reefs have significant cultural ties to these reefs. It is imperative that any new marine protected areas are developed in close cooperation with the people of these islands and account for traditional and cultural uses of these resources. Without such cooperation, there will not be public support. The national strategy will address how such traditional uses will be incorporated into these replenishment zones. The national program will also incorporate such important topics as mapping; research, monitoring, and assessment; international and regional management; outreach and education; and restoration. According to NOAA, the majority of our nation's coral reefs are within federal waters, therefore it is expected that NOAA will continue to work cooperatively with the states, territories, and commonwealths in the development and implementation of coral reef management plans and not shift the burden of responsibility onto these states, territories, and commonwealths. It is particularly important that NOAA not let recent activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands consume too much of the agency's personnel and financial resources at the expense of the rest of the nation's reefs. While the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Reserve will provide protection for the majority of reefs within our borders, it will not provide protection for our most heavily degraded reefs. NOAA must work collaboratively with our island partners to implement meaningful coral reef management strategies that target the full range of problems. The title also creates a new coral reef conservation program, which will provide grants to states, governmental authorities, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This is intended to foster locally based coral reef conservation and management. Creation of a coral reef conservation fund is also authorized. This fund would allow the Administration to enter into agreements with nonprofit organizations to support partnerships between the public and private sectors to further the conservation of coral reefs and help raise the matching funds required as part of the new grants program. The title authorizes a total of $16 million a year for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to be spilt equally between the local coral reef conservation program and national coral reef activities. It is our expectation that this money will be utilized in such a way that builds upon partnerships with the U.S. islands. Title III of the bill makes a number of minor technical changes to fisheries laws. The fourth title of the bill authorizes the study of biological and environmental factors that are responsible for an increase in deaths in the eastern gray whale population. Two-hundred ninety thousand dollars is authorized for fiscal year 2001, and $500,000 is authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Title V of the bill makes a technical correction to the American Fisheries Act (AFA) with regard to two fishing vessels, the Providian (United States Official Number 1062183) and the Hazel Lorraine (United States Official Number 592211). The 1998 AFA authorized the participation of certain US-owned fishing vessels in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The AFA was designed to work in conjunction with the license limitation provisions of the fishery management plan developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Certain ``qualifying years'' were established in order to determine which vessels had earned a ``fishing history'' to allow them future access to pollock-fishing quotas. During the consideration of the AFA, the special circumstances of many vessels were taken into account. At that time, the fishing vessel Providian was being built in a U.S. shipyard as a replacement vessel for the pollock-fishing vessel Ocean Spray. In 1994, the Ocean Spray was lost at sea--fortunately without the loss of a single life. Had the Ocean Spray not been lost, the vessel would have continued to fish for Bering Sea pollock during the years leading up to the development of the AFA. After the loss of the Ocean Spray, the owner-operator followed the replacement guidelines in order to secure his federal fishing permits and endorsement for his new vessel, the Providian. According to landing records, it appears that the average pollock harvest of the Ocean Spray during the years 1992 through 1994, exceeded 2000 metric tons. Since the construction on the Providian was completed, the owner decided to bring his vessel to Bath, Maine to work in the Maine herring fishery. The current location of this vessel does not eliminate the need to establish fairness and restore the vessel owner's pollock- fishing rights earned with the Ocean Spray during 1992-1994. This amendment to the AFA is intended to provide the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service with the authority to qualify the Providian under the AFA with directed onshore pollock-fishing rights equivalent to those earned by the Ocean Spray during the years 1992-1994. Mr. President, the authors of the AFA certainly took into account the particular circumstances of other vessel owners and companies. This technical amendment simply qualifies two vessels, the Providian and the Hazel Lorraine under the AFA for fishing rights that they otherwise should have received allow for the participation of two additional catcher vessels in the Alaskan pollock fishery. These vessels were able to demonstrate that they should have been included in the Act when it passed in 1998. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his support, particularly for his contributions to the coral reef conservation section of the bill. In addition, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. We have before us an opportunity to significantly improve our nation's ability to conserve and manage our marine resources and I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 1653, as amended.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express how deeply saddened and angered I am by the apparent terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole on October 12th. Earlier today, along with many of my distinguished colleagues, I attended a memorial service in Norfolk, Virginia, the homeport of Cole. It was an emotional event. The nation lost 17 of its sons and daughters in the prime of their lives. And we ask why? Why did this happen? I am hopeful that the details of the facts of this despicable act will be determined by the vigorous ongoing investigation. But I will tell my colleagues why--it is because we have national interests throughout the world and we have established a world wide military presence to protect these interests. We rely on these courageous young men and women who have volunteered to serve in our military to make the sacrifices necessary to protect these national interests. Mr. President, these young men and women of the U.S.S. Cole who were lost have made the ultimate sacrifice. As the chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I submitted a Senate resolution to memorialize those Sailors who were lost and to extend our heartfelt condolences to their families, shipmates, and other loved ones, to express our concern for the Sailors injured in the attack and wish them a speedy and full recovery, and to commend the entire crew for the performance and professionalism in saving their shipmates and their ship. You all remain in our prayers. With this apparent terrorist attack, once again, we were brutally reminded of the dangers and risks that our young men and women who serve in uniform face each hour of the day as they safeguard our nation's security interests around the world. In difficult times, one's true colors are revealed--and so I applaud the valiant and courageous actions of the entire crew of the U.S.S. Cole as they fought to save their shipmates and their ship from this despicable act. The courageous crew of the Cole embodies the motto of their ship as ``Determined Warriors.'' As we watched those first pictures unfold before our eyes I was struck by their professionalism, skill, and pride in fulfilling their duties. In that photo which shows a close up of the gaping hole at the waterline, I notice Sailors working on the deck just above, at once no doubt shocked and saddened by the loss of their shipmates, yet doing their jobs running pumps, securing lines, and carrying out the myriad other duties in this emergency with courage and determination. Although I will reserve my judgement on the specific cause of this tragedy until the formal investigation has concluded and those responsible have been identified, there should be no mistake: those who want to disrupt peace and deter our nation from our global responsibilities must know that we will leave no stone unturned in our search to determine who is culpable. They must and will be held accountable. And I feel strongly that the US should keep all options open in determining the appropriate actions for holding those responsible accountable for this cowardly action. The courage and resoluteness in the face of adversity shown by the gallant crew of the U.S.S. Cole is a national characteristic of Americans and when we are attacked under such circumstances, we all become ``determined warriors.'' The men and women of our armed forces are today's patriots who remain ever vigilant against those who seek to undermine peace and stability in the uncertain world in which we live. I have said before and I continue to believe that one of the United States' greatest blessings is that so many of her young men and women elect to stand vigil knowing full well the sacrifices they may be called upon to make. Certainly, America is stronger for their sacrifice and remains forever indebted. Mr. President, again it is with the deepest sorrow that I rise today to mourn the loss of our brave Sailors--my heart goes out to their families as well as those who have suffered injuries and their loved ones. May God grant them comfort and solace in the days ahead. It is my hope that, with this enrolled resolution, they will know that the entire nation grieves with them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the prescription drug reimportation provisions included in the conference report for the FY 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. I also want to thank my colleagues, especially Senators Jeffords and Dorgan for their hard work and dedication to this important issue. The United States is in the midst of a time of amazing prosperity. Nearly every week it seems that we hear of astounding new breakthroughs in biomedical research and in new prescription medications. And there is no question in anyone's mind that we have the best--the very best-- health care in the world. But our health care system is not without its flaws. Prescription drugs are revolutionizing health treatments, but their high cost is causing concern throughout the country. Everywhere we turn--from ``60 Minutes'' to Newsweek--we hear of the struggles that our nation's patients, especially the elderly, face, and the dramatic difference in costs of prescription medication between the U.S. and our neighbors to the North. The high cost of prescription medications in the United States is forcing many of our nation's seniors to make unthinkable decisions that are harmful to their health and well-being. It is simply unacceptable that the elderly have to chose between filling a prescription or buying groceries. A solution to the pressing problem of prescription drug coverage can't come soon enough. In 1998, drug costs grew more than any other category of health care--skyrocketing by 15.4 percent in a single year. And that's a special burden for seniors, who pay half the cost associated with their prescriptions as opposed to those under 65 who pay just a third. Seniors are reeling from the burden of their prescription drug expenses--one of the latest studies shows that the average senior now spends $1,100 every year on medications. And with the latest HCFA estimates putting the number of seniors without drug coverage at around 31 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries--or about 12 out of nearly 40 million Americans--it's not hard to see why we can no longer wait to provide a solution. In fact, nearly 86 percent of Medicare beneficiaries must use at least one prescription drug every day. Who are these seniors who don't have prescription drug coverage? Who are the ones traveling by the busload to Canada to buy their prescription drugs? These are people caught in the middle--most of whom are neither wealthy enough to afford their own coverage, nor poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. We know that seniors between 100 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level have the lowest levels of prescription drug coverage. In my eyes, it is absolutely unconscionable that any senior would be arrested after purchasing their otherwise legal prescription medication in Canada. That is why I teamed up with Senators Jeffords and Dorgan to introduce the ``Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act'' as an amendment to the FY 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. The amendment was accepted overwhelmingly by a vote of 74 to 21. I am pleased that the conference report includes a compromise on this amendment. The conference provision allows pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs for sale to American customers that were made in the U.S. or in FDA-approved facilities. The provisions require stringent safety and efficacy regulations. Drugs may only be reimported from Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, Israel, New Zealand, and South Africa. Controlled substances, such as morphine, cannot be imported. Drugs that are going to be reimported must meet U.S. labeling requirements and there will be stringent reporting requirements on any reimportation. The new provisions prohibit manufacturers from entering into a contract to prevent reimportation. Drug reimportation will not be allowed unless the Secretary of HHS can certify that the reimported drugs are safe and effective. The FDA will not be allowed to send letters to individuals about their personal reimportation unless the FDA believes that the drugs the person is bringing back are not safe, not effective, or not labeled correctly. Finally, the Secretary of HHS must certify that reimported drugs will save consumers money. Opponents of the reimportation of prescription medications have well- founded concerns about the safety of these medications. There is no doubt that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the world's premier agency in ensuring not only that drugs are safe and effective for their intended use, but that the actual manufacture of these drugs is done cleanly and safely. So when Congress considers changing the law to allow the importation of either retail or personal use prescription medication, we must also consider the safety implications that are involved: Are other countries insisting on the same standards we are? Are other countries guaranteeing the effectiveness of the medication--medication that is purportedly identical in strength? Are other countries using the same ingredients and ensuring that there are no impurities in these ingredients? The conference provision focuses on these safety considerations and includes substantial safeguards against the reimportation of lesser- quality prescription medication and stringent regulation to ensure that Americans have access to only the safest of products. Clearly, seniors are traveling to Canada because the price of prescription medications is generally less expensive than in the United States. The difference in the prices between the Canadian and the American market for pharmaceutical products does not come because we are purchasing different drugs or different quantities of drugs. It is this point that I hear the most about from my constituents: why can a person buy the same exact drug, in the same exact dosage, and the same quantity, for so much less in Canada than they can in Maine? The disparity in costs between U.S. and Canadian drug costs reflects our different markets, but also the government-run health care system that limits choices and proscribes doctors and care for Canadian consumers. The Canadian health care system is a government-run monopoly, an approach soundly rejected by the American public in 1994. In the U.S., costs are constrained through the market--not by the government--as health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and preferred customers like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs negotiate heavy discounts based on the size of their insurance pool. Seniors in the U.S. have limited bargaining power to negotiate down drug costs because they are not part of a single pool. Yet if seniors were united in a single group, they could exercise substantial clout in the marketplace to negotiate lower drug costs. There are 39 million Medicare beneficiaries--and these 39 million customers purchase a third of our nation's prescription medications. This represents a very large section of the market. Enacting prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries will make seniors a part of buyer groups with greater marketplace clout. This market force will allow seniors as a group to negotiate discounted pharmaceutical costs that will not only be the most economically sound solution, but will also guarantee seniors coverage of their prescription drugs. When American seniors find they have no market power, they often determine that their only recourse is to buy their much-needed drugs in a completely different market. It is fundamentally unfair when seniors in Maine feel they must drive across the Canadian border to obtain affordable prescription medications. Allowing the reimportation of prescription medications is, at best, an interim approach. It can be implemented while Congress debates the larger issue of Medicare reform, and enacting meaningful prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Again, Mr. President, I rise in support of these provisions and I thank the conferees for their willingness to address this vital issue and their dedication to hammering out a workable compromise.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I fully concur with my colleagues that robust public participation, oversight and review is necessary to ensure long-term meaningful protection of our living marine resources whether in Hawaii or in my home state of Maine. While I agree that it is appropriate to take action to protect our precious coral resources, I, to, am greatly concerned about the administration's plans to impose immediate and permanent prohibitions in marine areas without providing a meaningful opportunity for public comment on the proposal. Both the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provide models for such a process. As my esteemed colleague from Hawaii pointed out, WESPAC has gone through an elaborate public process in developing the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan which identified several potential closed areas. Does the Senator believe the development of this plan provided sufficient public review to support immediate closures under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or other marine conservation status implemented by the Secretary?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1482, the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000. This bill represents a major breakthrough for the protection of our coastal and marine resources by reauthorizing the marine sanctuary program. It is highly appropriate that we are considering this bill because just last week, on October 7, 2000, we designated our 13th national marine sanctuary in Thunder Bay. This is the first sanctuary in the system to be designated in the Great Lakes and serves as a perfect example of the type of federal and state partnerships that have contributed to the success of our other sanctuaries. One hundred years after the first national park was created, the United States made a similar commitment to preserving its valuable marine resources by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1972. Since then, 13 areas covering a wide range of marine habitats have been designated as national marine sanctuaries in the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. Today, the sanctuaries program protects over 18,000 square miles of our seas. Not only do the sanctuaries help protect unique ecosystems, but they also serve as models for multiple use management in the marine environment. Additionally, the sanctuaries can also function as platforms for better ocean stewardship, allowing opportunities for research, education, and outreach activities. One of the most serious impediments to achieving the original goals of the program is the lack of funding. This bill authorizes funds at a level that we hope will allow full implementation of the sanctuary program. The bill authorizes $32 million in fiscal year 2001, with levels increasing by $2 million a year until fiscal year 2005. It also authorizes $6 million a year in fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for construction projects at the sanctuaries. Additionally, we have set the priority for the next few years on making the existing sanctuaries fully operational before expanding the sanctuary system. These marine sanctuaries have tremendous potential for protecting our marine resources and increasing the public's awareness of the marine environment. However, lack of funding has prevented the sanctuary program from reaching its full potential. By increasing authorization levels and focusing our attention on the existing sanctuaries we can drastically increase the public benefits from these sanctuaries. There are two exceptions to this limitation. The first is to allow for the completion of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary designation. The second is to allow for the development of a sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. These unpopulated islands provide a refuge for marine resources without the typical coastal development pressures. They are also home to the majority of the United States' coral reefs. The people of Hawaii have strong ties to these islands and, in recent years, have been working on a variety of conservation strategies to better manage these valuable resources. One of the options being discussed is a national marine sanctuary. Members of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries want to ensure that this remains an option. The full complement of marine conservation and management programs administered by the Department of Commerce will provide for meaningful and lasting protections of these resources. This bill also creates the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program to recognize outstanding scholarship, particularly by women and minorities, in the fields of oceanography, marine biology, or maritime archeology. The scholarships will be used to support the graduate studies and research of its recipients. It is being established in honor of Dr. Nancy Foster, a 23-year NOAA employee who was serving as the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management at the time of her death in June. The scholarship will be funded by setting aside 1 percent of the National Marine Sanctuary Program's annual appropriated funds. I can think of no better tribute to Dr. Foster's long commitment to marine resource conservation and management then helping the next generation of scientists and managers launch their careers. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his support, particularly for his contributions to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Reserve provision. In addition, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. We have before us an opportunity to significantly improve our nation's ability to conserve and manage our marine resources and I urge the Senate to pass S. 1482, as amended. marine sanctuary program

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 3417, the Pribilof Islands Transition Act with the amendment I have offered. This bill, as amended, contains a number of ocean, coastal, and fisheries related titles that will result in major conservation gains for our nation's marine resources at a time when we are placing enormous demands on them. The bill not only attempts to provide additional environmental protections through a number of state and local programs, but also tools for better management. Title I of this bill is the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. The Alaskan Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea were a former reserve for harvesting fur seals. The Commerce Department, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been involved in municipal and social services on the islands since 1910. In 1983, NOAA tried to remove themselves from administering these programs. However, despite the $20 million in funds the Pribilof Islands received to replace future annual Federal appropriations, the Pribilof Islanders claim that the terms of the transition process were not met and the withdrawal failed. This title authorizes $28 million over five years to again attempt to achieve the orderly withdrawal of NOAA from the civil administration of the Pribilof Islands. Additionally, it authorizes $10 million a year for five years for NOAA to complete its environmental cleanup and landfill closure obligations prior to the final transfer of federal property to the six local entities. The Pribilof Islands have historically been a very expensive program to the American taxpayers. Congress expects that this title will provide a final termination of NOAA's municipal and social service responsibilities on the islands and a distinct end to federal taxpayer funding of those services. Title II of this bill is the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000, which refines and reauthorizes funding for the nation's coastal zone management program. This is the same language that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on September 28, 2000. Not only is this federal-state partnership important to my home state of Maine, but it is also a significant management tool for coastal states throughout the country. Despite the fact that the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, it is home to more than 53 percent of the U.S. population, and more than 3,600 people relocate there annually. Not only is it an important economic region, but the coastal zone is also critical ecologically. We are currently facing a very serious problem in the coastal zone in the form of non-point source pollution. This type of runoff pollution is degrading the condition of our coastal rivers, wetlands, and marine environments. Compromising the environmental integrity of the coastal zone can in turn have a large impact on the regions' economic viability in a number of sectors, including tourism and fishing. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 addresses this issue by encouraging and funding states to implement local solutions to their non-point source pollution problems. We have not created any new mandates or programs addressing non-point source pollution. Rather, the Coastal Community program can be used at the states' discretion if they want to create and implement local community-based solutions to problems, which would include non-point source pollution control strategies and measures. This title greatly increases authorization levels for the coastal zone management program, allowing states to better address their coastal management plan goals. While we have achieved many successes through the CZMA, the states have made it clear that they can do more and that they can raise additional funds to match the increased federal funding. Therefore, we have authorized a total of $136.5 million for fiscal year 2001 and increased authorization levels by $5.5 million a year through fiscal year 2004. This total authorization includes an increase for the National Estuarine Research and Reserve System (NERRS) to $12 million in fiscal year 2001, with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2004. Mr. President, Title III of the bill deals with the management of several Atlantic coast fisheries. Subtitle A reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (ASBCA). The ASBCA was originally passed to help coordinate and improve interstate management of Atlantic striped bass, an important commercial and recreational fish. Because striped bass migrate along the eastern seaboard, it is imperative that management measures be coordinated among the various states. The rebuilding of striped bass populations is considered one of our fisheries management success stories and it is critical that we continue these efforts. This subtitle authorizes $1.25 million a year for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to carry out the provisions of the act and another $250,000 to conduct a population study on the Atlantic striped bass. Subtitle B, the Atlantic Costal Fisheries Act of 2000, will reauthorize the highly successful interstate program that manages coastal fisheries that cross jurisdictional boundaries along the east coast. The states have proven that joint management of these resources is far more effective than a piecemeal approach by individual states. In an effort to further increase the effectiveness of interstate management, the states have initiated the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. This joint data collection and analysis program is intended to meet the need for improved fishery statistics for management purposes. It is a comprehensive effort to address all areas and fisheries and could serve as a model for a national cooperative statistics program. This subtitle authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 2001, increasing the authorization by $2 million a year until fiscal year 2005. Subtitle C of this title deals with a significant problem facing the Atlantic bluefin tuna, ABT, fishery. In 1998, the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel unanimously requested and advised the Secretary of Commerce to ban the use of spotter aircraft in the General and Harpoon categories of the ABT fishery. Spotter aircraft tend to accelerate the catch of the ABT, and thus can create significant impacts on both the communities that depend on the fishery and the conservation intentions of the ABT management plans. Because NMFS has been unable to successfully implement a rule to ban the use of spotter aircraft in the ABT fishery over the past two years, it has become necessary for Congress to take legislative action. Subtitle C prohibits the unfair use of spotter aircraft to locate or assist in fishing for ABT in the General and Harpoon categories of the ABT fishery. This action follows numerous public hearings held by NMFS and the discussion of this issue at several Senate hearings. This provision passed by unanimous consent in the Senate as part of an amendment to H.R. 1651, the Fishermen's Protective Act, on June 26, 2000. Mr. President, to many Americans, as well as myself, the practice of shark finning is both wasteful and disturbing. Shark finning is a method by which the dorsal fin and tail of a shark are cut off and retained, while the rest of the shark carcass is discarded as waste. Much of the fin product is then exported for sale to Asian countries. Title IV, the Shark Conservation Act, attempts to address this problem by prohibiting the domestic landing and at-sea transhipment of shark fins. It also directs the Administration to begin international negotiations to reduce foreign shark finning. Title V of the bill is the Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments of 2000. It amends the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to lengthen the period during which reimbursement can be provided to owners of U.S. fishing vessels for costs incurred when a vessel is illegally seized, detained, or charged certain fees by a foreign country. Under the title, the reimbursement period is extended until fiscal year 2003. This provision passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 2000. Mr. President, title VI of the bill is the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000. It creates a Yukon River Salmon Panel to advise both the Secretary of State regarding negotiation of any international agreements with Canada relating to management of Yukon River salmon stocks and Secretary of the Interior regarding management of those stocks. An Advisory Committee is created to make advisory recommendations to a number of entities, including the Panel. A total of four million dollars a year for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 is authorized. Of these funds, up to $3 million a year can be used for a Yukon River salmon survey, restoration, enhancement activities; $600,000 of the total is to be available for cooperative Yukon River salmon research and management projects. This provision passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 2000. This bill also address the very serious problem of an aging fishery research vessel, FRV, fleet. Because these vessels are used to conduct the majority of fishery stock assessments, they are a critical tool for improving management and regulation of our commercial fish species. Over the past year, I have conducted a series of six hearings across the country on fisheries management. At every hearing, the need for more and better data was raised repeatedly by the witnesses. The seventh title of the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to acquire vessels, authorizing $60 million a year for fiscal years 2002 through 2004. They will be outfitted with the latest technology and enable innovative research. New England is in particular need of a replacement FRV, since the current NOAA vessel, the Albatross IV, is 38 years old and at the end of its useful life. Without a new vessel, the ability for NOAA to collect long term fisheries, oceanographic, and biological data in New England will be seriously compromised. I had offered this provision as an amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act which passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on June 26, 2000. Mr. President, the bill also makes significant conservation and management improvements for our nation's coral reefs. Title VIII, the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, requires the creation of a national coral reef action strategy. Of particular note is the use of marine protected areas to serve as replenishment zones. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has called for setting aside 20 percent of coral reefs in each region of the United States that contains reefs as no-take areas. However, many of the U.S. islands that have coral reefs have significant cultural ties to these reefs. It is imperative that any new marine protected areas are developed in close cooperation with the people of these islands and account for traditional and cultural uses of these resources. Without such cooperation, there will not be public support. The national strategy will address how such traditional uses will be incorporated into these replenishment zones. The national program will also incorporate such important topics as mapping; research, monitoring, and assessment; international and regional management; outreach and education; and restoration. According to NOAA, the majority of our nation's coral reefs are within federal waters, therefore it is expected that NOAA will continue to work cooperatively with the states, territories, and commonwealths in the development and implementation of coral reef management plans and shift the burden of responsibility onto these states, territories, and commonwealths. The title also creates a new coral reef conservation program, which will provide grants to states, governmental authorities, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This is intended to foster locally based coral reef conservation and management. Creation of a coral reef conservation fund is also authorized. This fund would allow the Administration to enter into agreements with nonprofit organizations to support partnerships between the public and private sectors to further the conservation of coral reefs and help raise the matching funds required as part of the new grants program. The title authorizes a total of $16 million a year for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to be spilt equally between the local coral reef conservation program and national coral reef activities. Title IX of the bill amends the American Fisheries Act to allow for the participation of two additional catcher vessels in the Alaskan pollock fishery. These vessels were able to demonstrate that they should have been included in the Act when it passed in 1998. This title also makes a number of minor technical changes to other fisheries laws. Title X creates a new marine mammal rescue assistance grant program. This new program will assist eligible marine mammal stranding network participants by providing funding for recovery and treatment of marine mammals. Grants can also be used for data collection and the continued operation of these stranding centers. Efforts of these centers are critical for the continued conservation and management of marine mammals in our nation's waters. This program is authorized at $5 million for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his support, particularly for his contributions to the coral reef conservation section of the bill. In addition, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. We have before us an opportunity to significantly improve our Nation's ability to conserve and manage our marine resources and I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 3417, as amended.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and an outstanding public servant who is retiring from the United States Senate this year after 18 years in public service, Senator Connie Mack of Florida. I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Mack in both houses of Congress. And I know him as a man deeply committed to the finest ideals of public service, as well as the beliefs he so passionately holds. Perhaps no one believes more fervently in the inherent potential of each and every individual than Senator Mack. For him, it is not government that creates wealth or success or personal fulfillment. It is the American people. To give people opportunity--to give them the skills they need to compete and reach their greatest potential--is for Senator Mack perhaps the greatest end that government can serve. I have also known Senator Mack as a staunch proponent of fiscal responsibility, back to the days when it often seemed that talk of balanced budgets was only slightly more fashionable than actually balancing the budget. I have to believe he must share my sense of wonder as to how far we've come, and it is thanks in no small part to the efforts of Senator Mack and those like him who have fought for years to make the current surpluses a reality. Senator Mack has been a strong voice for the Sunshine State in the United States Senate. Most recently, his tireless efforts in helping to shepherd through the Senate the historic Everglades restoration plan, the Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act, leaves a positive and lasting mark on Florida and one of our nation's true natural treasures that will be appreciated for generations to come. One could argue, however, that Senator Mack has pursued no other goal with a higher degree of dogged determination than increasing our federal investment in medical research. He rightly sees this issue as a matter of national importance, knowing no political, social, financial, or racial boundaries. He recognizes that disease touches every American family. Certainly, it has had a profound impact on his own family, including his wife, daughter, brother, and both parents--as well as affecting his own life. Characteristically, Senator Mack and his wife, Priscilla, who is a courageous breast cancer survivor, met these challenges first with courage and dignity, and then with an unyielding determination to do something about them. Both have been extremely active in spreading the word on the importance of early detection. As co-Chair of the bipartisan Senate Cancer Coalition, Senator Mack has provided outstanding leadership on matters relating to our fight against cancer, and in particular I have been honored to work with Senator Mack on providing greater funding for breast cancer research. The depth of Senator Mack's concern when it comes to this dread disease cannot truly be measured. Certainly, having worked on this issue throughout my tenure in Congress, I was honored and thankful for Senator Mack's participation in a breast cancer hearing, or ``breast cancer summit'', we convened in 1996, but I was not surprised that he would be there to contribute his wisdom and his support. From that summit came legislation to establish a national data bank of information on clinical trials involving experimental treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases. It also mandated that a toll-free number be instituted for patients, doctors and others to access this information. Senator Mack has literally been instrumental in securing increased funding for medical research in general, and indeed for the fiscal year 2000 fought for the inclusion of a $2.3 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. And he has rightfully called for funding to NIH to be doubled from $12.75 billion to over $25 billion over the next five years. Finally, Mr. President, to quote a piece from the St. Petersburg Times from last year, ``the Senate will lose one of its nicest members.'' And that is absolutely true. Senator Mack has strongly held beliefs on the issues, let there be no doubt. But he has always understood the fine but certain distinction between disagreeing and being disagreeable. He has been a credit to the Senate, to Florida, to the nation, and to his family. I wish him well as he returns to his beloved state and embarks on a new chapter in his life-- one that I hope will be filled with happiness and good health for him and his wife, Priscilla. He will be missed by all those fortunate enough to have worked with him.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Conference Report which we are considering today. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I enthusiastically endorse this legislation, and further would like to particularly note its name as the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 in recognition of the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's long and distinguished service. I also want to acknowledge the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the superb leadership he has provided in support of the committee in the context of the entire authorization bill, and our ranking member, Senator Carl Levin, for all his work on this conference report and for his contribution to the committee and its deliberations. The Seapower Subcommittee addressed significant issues this year and we did so with the bipartisan support of the members of our subcommittee. I want to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Seapower subcommittee, and the other subcommittee members, Senators John McCain, Bob Smith, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Robb, and Jack Reed, for their contributions and their bipartisan support of not only this legislation but also of the work by the subcommittee throughout this year. This conference report takes great strides toward modernizing our armed services, meeting their operational and maintenance funding requirements, and improving the quality of service for our dedicated and valuable men and women of the military. Because we recognize that the service members are our most valuable asset, this bill makes a solid investment in substantive healthcare provisions which will improve the coverage and quality of healthcare for our active duty military members, retirees, and their family members. Significantly, this legislation initiates a permanent program to provide ``healthcare for life'' to our military retirees age 65 and older by supplementing Medicare with TRICARE, the military's healthcare program. It also includes a provision, originally the Kennedy-Snowe amendment, which complements the ``healthcare for life'' legislation by expanding prescription drug coverage for all our retirees--to provide a comprehensive healthcare benefits program that our military retirees so richly deserve. This conference report also reflects the Seapower Subcommittee's hard look at Navy and Marine Corps operations and the equipment our men and women require to carry out those operations. And, Mr. President, what we have found in testimony from our operational commander is that our Navy and Marine Corps continues to be the nation's 9-1-1 force. Our sailors and marines are forward deployed, carrying out the national military strategy, and they continue to function at a high level of operations. In fact, between 1980 and 1989, the Navy/Marine Corps team alone responded to 58 contingency missions. However, between 1990 and 1999 that number had increased to 192 contingency missions--a remarkable threefold increase in operations! What makes this figure even more astounding is that this increase in missions occurred while the number of ships was reduced from 500 in 1980 to the current fleet of 316 ships. The subcommittee recognizes the critical and unique role that the Navy and Marine Corps team filled in pursuing the national military strategy, and worked to create a bill that would support these diverse missions. To that end, I am pleased that this conference report authorizes an increase of $749 million to the Seapower Subcommittee procurement programs--on top of the President's budget request of $21.6 billion. Furthermore, this conference agreement includes all of the original Seapower Subcommittee legislative provisions I referenced during my June discussion of these issues on the floor of the Senate, as well as several positive additions which will enhance both our national security and the readiness of our naval forces. I want to highlight several capabilities and programs that we addressed after receiving testimony from the service chiefs and operational commanders and after visiting and talking with our service men and women. The Seapower conference report aggressively addresses the future of our nation's Navy and the importance of recapitalization of our fleet by authorizing the construction of eight new ships. This includes $4 billion for a Nimitz class aircraft carrier; $2.7 billion for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers--the most advanced surface combatant in the world; $1.5 billion for two LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious ships which will begin to reduce lifecycle costs in our amphibious fleet; $339 million for one ADC(X) auxiliary supply ship; and $1.2 billion for one Virginia class attack submarine It also authorizes the President's request of $357 million for the advance procurement of seven DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, $508 million for SSN-774 Virginia class attack submarines, and $22 million for one CVN(X) nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The subcommittee recognized this need to modernize the fleet and, as a result, invested in future ship research and development as the seed corn of the future Navy by approving the budget request of $38 million for CVN-77--the last aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class; $274 million for CVN(X); $207 million for the SSN-774 Virginia class attack submarines; and $535 million for the revolutionary DD-21 land attack destroyer. This conference report also approves the President's request for $1.1 billion for the procurement of sixteen MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps tilt- rotor aircraft, $2.2 billion to procure twelve C-17 aircraft, and $176.4 million for contained research, development, test, and evaluation of the C-17 strategic airlift program. I am pleased that $560 million of the total procurement authorization increase is for new ship construction and will assist the Navy in achieving potential savings of over $1 billion. This increase includes $460 million for advanced procurement of the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship and an increase of $100 million for advance procurement of DDC-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. For the Navy and Marine Corps aviation communities the conference report authorizes an increase of $52.4 million to re-manufacture two additional SH-60 helicopters and a $41.8 million increase to procure two additional CH-60 Navy helicopters, an increase of $22 million for additional P-3 Anti-Surface Warfare Improvement Program Kits, and an increase of $17 million for modifications and night operations upgrades to the Marine Corps UH-1 and AH-1 helicopters. The conference agreement authorizes a $179.5 million increase to the President's budget request of $4.5 billion for the research, development, test, and evaluation of Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force programs under the jurisdiction of the Seapower Subcommittee to include a $12.5 million increase for an additional Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle prototype, a $20 million increase to develop advanced shipboard simulators for Marines embarked on amphibious ships, a $15 million increase for a multi-purpose acoustic processor for anti-submarine warfare, a $10 million increase for development of command and decision software to be used throughout the surface Navy to improve communication among commanders, and an $8.4 million increase for the development of a defense system to protect our surface ships from torpedoes. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that these increases were authorized by the Seapower Subcommittee to begin to provide much needed relief to the operational commanders who testified that they were being ``stretched too thin.'' This added funding supports critical programs that will provide commanders with the equipment and the modernized systems they require to successfully and safely accomplish their mission. I say to my colleagues, this entire defense bill takes a positive step toward modernizing our armed services, meeting their operational and maintenance funding requirements, and improving the quality of service for our committed men and women of the military. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of the final version of the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his support of this initiative. I agree with him and my colleague, Senator Santorum, and they are correct in their understanding of the intent of this authorization and the benefits center itself. Cutler has a history of admirable and noteworthy support of the U.S. Navy. For nearly 40 years, the United States Navy's Computer and Telecommunications Station resided in Cutler and set standards for excellence in performing its vital national security mission. The civilian men and women of Cutler who contributed so much to this success personify Maine's celebrated work ethic. Now, the residents of Cutler eagerly await the establishment of the new benefits center and will once again showcase their loyalty, work ethic and stalwart support for the United States Navy. specified cancer