Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, which is included in the conference report for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3244). Current authorization for these programs expired at the end of September, and I believe that we must take immediate action to ensure that these programs are reauthorized before we go home. This bill has broad support on both sides of the aisle, with 73 cosponsors. Domestic violence, no matter who commits it, is an extremely serious and tragically common crime that devastates families and takes a great toll on our society. Moreover, domestic violence often goes unreported, in large part because the incident is seen as a private and personal issue or because of the fear of a repeated attack by the assailant. In my view, Congress must continue to address domestic violence in a comprehensive manner by providing resources for states and communities to disseminate education about domestic violence; provide counseling to the victim, the aggressor, and any children in the family; and ensure shelter to every person and child who needs to leave their home due to domestic violence. It is also important that health professionals are trained to identify and treat the medical conditions arising from domestic violence. This is a crime that we must put an end to and we must let those people who are suffering know there is help on the way. Violence knows no gender barriers, but we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that women are especially likely to be vulnerable to danger and crime. The Violence Against Women Act is a critical tool in our fight to combat domestic violence across America. It is an absolutely essential bill for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, relatives, friends, and co-workers. One of the most important issues facing women today is the threat of violence. Three to four million American women are battered by their husbands or partners every single year. At least a third of all female emergency room patients are battered women. A third of all homeless women and children in the U.S. are fleeing domestic violence. At least 5,000 women are beaten to death each year. A woman in the United States is more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped, or killed by a male partner than by any other assailant. And women are six times more likely than men to be the victims of a violent crime. This is more than just a nightmare for women. It is an America that millions of women and girls must wake up to each day. It is a grim reality millions of women and girls must enter each day of their lives just to go to work or attend school. It is real life America for millions of women and girls. And it is an unspeakable tragedy. How many of us were shocked in June to read that women were attacked in New York City's Central Park in broad daylight following a parade? For days afterward we read headlines entitled ``Defenseless in the Park'' . . . ``Six More Arrested in Sex Attacks in Park'' . . . ``Police Study Central Park Mob's 35-Minute Binge of Sexual Assault.'' The litany of tragedy and violence against the women assaulted that day in Central Park paints a full, stark and disheartening picture of a nation unable to protect a woman's safety. One of the victims, Emma Sussman Starr, wrote the New York Times about her attack and about the prevalence of violence against women in America. She said: ``Women learn early which streets are safe to walk on, when it's safe to be there and even how to walk (hands wrapped around keys, eyes straight ahead). We accept that we must pay for our safety in the form of cabs and doorman buildings in more expensive neighborhoods.'' What a sad statement. The threat of violence is pervasive, and as Ms. Starr writes, it influences every decision a woman makes. Every time a woman changes her pattern of behavior--for example, when she walks home from work a different way--in order to avoid potential violence such as rape, stalking, domestic assault, she is ultimately making a decision about how to live her life. The original Violence Against Women Act, enacted in 1994, was a landmark piece of legislation. For the first time, Congress took a comprehensive look at the problem of violence against women, created the programs, and funded the shelters to help women out of these violent situations. Since then, thousands of women across the country have been given the opportunity to free themselves from violence. But the problem of violence against women has not been solved in these six years since the original bill was signed into law. We must continue to talk about ways in which we can guarantee women's safety, further secure women's rights, and strengthen our ability as a nation to protect those inalienable rights as guaranteed under the Constitution. After all, how can we defend a woman's right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' when we cannot as a nation protect women from ``Rape, battery, and the onslaught of violence?'' The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 reauthorizes these fundamental programs. The bill provides funding for grants to prevent campus crimes against women; extends programs to prevent violence in rural areas; builds on the progress we have made in constructing shelters for women who are victims of violent crimes; and strengthens protections for older women from violence. I believe that no matter whatever else Congress does for women--from enacting public policies and designing specific programs aimed to promote women's health, education, economic security, or safety, we must also ensure that women have equal protection under our country's law and in our constitution. Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act programs is an important step in this direction. It isn't often that Congress can claim to enact a law that literally may mean life or death for a person. The Violence Against Women Act is such a law, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Mainer and one of the most outstanding individuals I have had the good fortune to know, Francis Brown of Calais, ME. There are many rewarding aspects to public service, not the least of which is the opportunity to meet people like Francis Brown. It has been my privilege to call Francis a friend for more than two decades now, and I know the people of Downeast Maine share my high regard and deepest respect for this devoted family man who has given so much of himself to the community and state he loves. Francis is a leading citizen of Calais. He exemplifies the kind of values and ideals we frequently associate with those small towns throughout the country where neighbors still help neighbors, and where service to others is the standard by which a man or woman is measured. Indeed, for Francis, the concept of service is one indelibly woven through the fabric of his life. As a student at the University of Maine, my alma mater, Francis spent four years in the ROTC program, and went on to serve in World War Two as a Radar Officer and in Korea as a member of the military police. Having more than fulfilled his duty to his country, Francis nevertheless later volunteered as an Army reservist with the Maine Army National Guard from 1946 until 1967, when he retired with the rank of Major. When he was not serving his country in the armed forces, Francis was working on behalf of his fellow Mainers not only in his law practice but as a longtime and well-respected city solicitor. As is typical of his nature, however, Francis was not content to allow his efforts in the practice of law alone--significant as they were--define his commitment to the community. Giving generously of his time and talents, Francis has touched many lives and has made an indelible and positive mark on his beloved Washington County and the State of Maine. He was a member of the Advisory Committee to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Criminal Rules of procedure for thirteen years. A long-time active and integral member of the Calais Rotary Club, he earned distinction as a Paul Harris Fellow in 1976. Emblematic of his commitment to and interest in education, Francis brought his tremendous wealth of knowledge and experience to his service on the University of Maine Board of Trustees for more than a decade. And as a man whose faith has always been central to his life, he has served his beloved United Methodist Church in Calais as a trustee for many years. Not surprisingly, Francis has been recognized with many awards over the years, including the Arlo T. Bates Award for Outstanding Community Service from the Calais Chamber of Commerce, the prestigious Jefferson Public Service Award, and the University of Maine Presidential Achievement Award. And just as predictably, Francis has never been very impressed by all the recognition and adulation. For him, good deeds are always to be done for their own sake. Acts of kindness are made because that is simply the proper way to live one's life, not because they may bring personal glorification. Indeed, Francis is one of the most genuinely decent and humble people I have known. Most of all, he is quite simply a wonderful person to be around. I would dare say there was never a person who has met Francis who does not like Francis. His generous spirit could warm even the coldest Maine day, and his humor could shine good cheer into the darkest of times. How thankful we are for such gifts as those he has so selflessly given to us. Today, it is our turn to return the favor. With Francis having fallen ill in recent times, the hearts of many go out to him as do our prayers. It is not likely that any of us will be able to fully repay the debt of gratitude we feel to this beloved friend, neighbor, and fellow Mainer. But we certainly feel compelled to try. The great American author Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived--this is to have succeeded.'' By that measure, Francis Brown is unquestionably one of the most successful people I know, and I want him to know that I am proud to call him a friend.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unwavering support for passage of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act (S. 662). This bill addresses an issue that is vital to the health and lives of so many low-income women--coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment under the Medicaid program. This legislation was originally introduced by our late colleague, Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island. Senator Chafee was always one of the Senate's leaders on health care issues, and like all of my colleagues, I am sad that he is not with us today to see his bill pass the Senate. I know that he would be pleased to know that his bill now has the support of 75 Senators. I also want to take a moment to note the dedication of my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Linc Chafee, Grassley, and Hatch--we have put many hours into ensuring that today's legislation gets through the Senate and can be reconciled quickly with the House version. Finally, this bill would not be before us today if not for the help of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--it was Senator Roth who made a commitment to get this bill through the Finance Committee. In 1990, while serving in the House, I was a proud cosponsor of the legislation that established the Center for Disease Control's National Breast and Cervical Early Detection Program. This groundbreaking program--sponsored in the Senate by Senator Mikulski--ensures that women who are medically underserved in this country receive regular screening for breast and cervical cancer. Since the program did its very first screening in 1991, over 1.4 million women have had either a mammogram or a test for cervical cancer. And more are screened every single day. It is unquestionable that early detection is our best weapon against cancer. The success of the CDC program is proven. As a result of this program over 6,800 uninsured, low-income women across the country now know they have breast cancer and can take action to fight this disease. And over 34,000 uninsured, low-income women across the country now know they have either invasive cervical cancer or pre-cancerous cervical lesions. In my home state of Maine, nearly 16,000 women have gone through the screening program since it began in 1995. And as a result of this screening 46 women with breast cancer and 23 women with cervical cancer have vital information that they might not have had otherwise. I don't like to think of what could have happened if they had found out about their cancer when it was too late. Unfortunately, screening alone--and the life-or-death knowledge about one's health that comes as a result--cannot save a woman's life. It is estimated that breast and cervical cancer will kill more than half a million women this decade alone. In fact, breast cancer is the number one killer of American women between the ages of 35 and 54. While screening is the first line of defense in fighting cancer, and is so very, very important, it is really only the first part of the battle. When the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program passed in 1990, we wanted to ensure that women would receive treatment. The law was written to require states to seek out services for the women they screen in order to receive timely and appropriate treatment. But the state programs are overwhelmed. Program administrators are scrambling to find treatment services--and even then these uninsured, low-income women must somehow come up the money for costly procedures. This legislation will give women who have been screened through the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program the chance to receive needed treatment that is truly life-and-death. This Act will allow states the option of providing Medicaid services to women who have breast or cervical cancer. I would like to explain to my colleagues why this legislation is so important in a very personal way. One of my constituents went through the Maine Breast and Cervical Health Program and had an abnormal mammogram, followed by an abnormal ultrasound. She was advised to have a sterotactic biopsy but delayed for three months because she could not afford it. Three months in which her cancer could grow and spread. And while she eventually had the biopsy and was not diagnosed with cancer, these three months could have truly meant the difference between winning or losing her battle against cancer. The women who go through this program have undergone enough solely by being diagnosed with cancer. And the stress of diagnosis is almost debilitating. But to compound this stress, to leave a woman with the knowledge that she has cancer, that she must--absolutely must-- receive treatment or her cancer will spread, but to not help her find the means to fight for her life is unconscionable. We cannot sit back and claim that a screening program is enough to save a woman's life. We know that the uninsured are 49 percent more likely to die than are insured women during the four to seven years following an initial breast cancer diagnosis. This is unconscionable-- we must provide an option for uninsured women who are not able to pay for treatment on their own. We cannot sit back and watch women die from a disease that they discovered through our program but not help them fight this disease. I am extremely pleased that the Senate is bringing the bill up for passage today; the House overwhelmingly passed its version on May 9th and I hope that the two bills will be reconciled quickly in conference.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Nathaniel T. Cobb of Waterville, Maine, to this great Nation. Nate Cobb is a veteran of World War II, where he served as a combat engineer in the South Pacific and participated in the planning of six invasions during his tenure in the Army. Like so many brave Americans, he came home after the war and continued to contribute to his country and community. Over the years, Nate has generously and selflessly reached out to fellow veterans and their families in need, working to ensure that veterans receive the benefits they have earned and so richly deserve. To this end, Nate often devoted his weekends and evenings to helping veterans, even as he worked full time for the Waterville Morning Sentinel newspaper in Waterville, Maine for almost 40 years. In the 1960's Nathaniel Cobb demonstrated impressive foresight in proposing the idea of a veterans cemetery to former Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who worked with him to establish--in Maine--the first state veterans cemetery in the entire country. As State Adjutant of the American legion at the time, he presented the resolution calling for a veterans cemetery to the State legislature, which approved it unanimously. Not only that, but he worked tirelessly to secure funding for the cemetery, which was dedicated in 1970, and later helped establish a chapel there as well. Nate's achievements also extend into the realm of the written word, having written two books about the Maine Veterans Memorial Cemetery in order to raise funds to preserve the ground for generations to come. To this day, the proceeds from the sale of this book are still generating support for the cemetery association. I am proud that a letter I wrote in support of his efforts appears in the second edition of his book. Nathaniel Cobb also initiated the ``Garden of Remembrance'' at the cemetery to honor those Mainers whose remains were never found. He was Sate Adjutant for the American Legion twice, State Treasurer for 12 years, and State Chaplain for 6 years. He has served on the Maine Veterans Home Board and on the Veterans Loan Authority Board. It was an honor to work with him on the fight to preserve Maine's only veterans hospital--the Togus Veterans Administration Medical and Regional Office Center--as well as other fundamental needs of Maine's veterans. I congratulate Nate today as well as express my profound appreciation as an American for the lifetime of service and sacrifice he has rendered. He is truly an effective and doggedly determined advocate for veterans. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those, like Nathaniel Cobb, who have served with courage, honor and distinction when their country--and the world, no less--needed them so desperately. From World War II through Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, and numerous other conflicts, freedom and democracy have survived because when the call to duty came, our veterans were there to answer. It is because of them that we enjoy lives unfettered by oppression, in a democracy that stands as a blueprint--and a beacon--for people the world over. It is because of them that we stand at the vanguard of human rights, human dignity, and personal opportunity. And as long as America remains a beacon of hope, we must never forget it is a beacon that shines with the bright light of all those, like Nathaniel Cobb, who sacrificed for the principles for which America stands. We may hardly know where to begin in reconciling a debt to them that can never be fully repaid. but we know we can do no less than to try our very best. In that light, it is truly an honor to congratulate Nate Cobb on a life of accomplishments and contributions to this country of which he should be rightfully proud. He is a credit to Maine and the Nation and a true American hero in every possible sense of the world. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1534, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000. This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this Act, coastal states can choose to participate in the voluntary federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development. The Coastal Zone Management Act was originally enacted by Congress in 1972, in response to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources. These pressures have increased greatly since the Act was originally authorized. Although 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 are relocating there annually. It is also an extremely important region economically, supporting commercial and recreational fishing, a booming coastal tourism industry, major commercial shipping, and a variety of other coastal industries. The coastal zone is comprised of a number of delicate and extremely important ecosystems. Its health is of vital importance not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal estuaries provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, with value-added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing added another $25 billion to the economy. Unfortunately, these major economic contributions are being threatened by environmental problems such as non-point source pollution. Non-point source pollution is degrading the condition of our coastal rivers, wetlands, and marine environments. Although the states are currently taking action to address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 encourages them to take additional steps to combat the problem through the Coastal Community Program. This initiative provides states with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific non-point source pollution problems. The states will have the ability to implement local solutions to local problems. The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides states in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than non-point solution. It increases federal and state support of local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical. It allows communities to design their own solutions to their unique coastal environmental problems. The program also allows communities to be proactive in protecting their coastal resources, preventing them from reaching a point where drastic action may become necessary. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 significantly increases authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing states to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2001 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2004. To provide further flexibility, the bill allows state matching funds to accrue in aggregate, as opposed to requiring the states to match each section individually. In my own state of Maine, our Coastal Zone Management Program raises an average of seven dollars in state matching funds for every single federal dollar appropriated. Unfortunately, not all states have been as successful. The new aggregate match provision will give coastal states more leeway to address important state and community projects. Additionally, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000 increases authorization for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) to $12 million in fiscal year 2001 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2004. The NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative federal-state partnership. Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 states. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in estuarine ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves. I would like to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant section, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the states' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each state receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of coastline and the population of each state. However, since 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a two million dollar cap per state on Administrative Grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating states. However, over the past eight years, appropriations for Administrative Grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. In fiscal year 2000, 13 states had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 states account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population. It is not equitable to have the 13 states with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a two million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller states have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger states have stagnated. In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each state. It further requires that states should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase. I would like to thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states be treated fairly. The Coastal Zone Management Act enjoys wide support among all of the coastal states due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program. 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 express my appreciation to Senator McCain, a co-sponsor of the bill and the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. I urge the Senate to pass S. 1534, as amended. Amendment No. 4278

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the contraceptive coverage provision included in the FY2001 Treasury-Postal appropriations conference report currently before the Senate. This provision is fundamental to the health of the approximately 2 million women of reproductive age who rely on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, for their health care, and I thank Chairman Campbell for again including this important language. This language is essentially the same language that has been signed into law the last 2 years. This provision says that if an FEHBP health plan provides coverage of prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover all FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. It also says that plans which already cover outpatient services also cover medical and counseling services to promote the effective use of those contraceptives. This language respects the rights of religious plans that, as a matter of conscience, choose not to cover contraceptives. Furthermore, the committee language we have before us makes it clear that this language does not cover abortion in any way, shape, or form. The contraceptive coverage provision signed into law the last 2 years, and contained in this year's bill, contains a conscience clause that strikes the appropriate balance between recognizing the legitimate religious concerns of individual health plans and physicians with the equally important goal of increasing access to prescription contraceptives and reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion rates in this country. The religious exemption in current law specifically exempts the religious-based plans that the Office of Personnel Management, which manages FEHBP, identified as participating in FEHBP. And it exempts ``any existing or future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs.'' Despite concerns voiced by opponents, this provision has caused no upheaval in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. When plans have left the program in the last 2 years they cited insufficient enrollment, noncompetitive premiums, or unpredictable utilization as the reason for leaving the program--not the requirement to cover prescription contraception. And other than the five plans specifically excluded in current law, no plan has requested to be excluded from the provision nor has any plan complained that the conscience clause is insufficient. Furthermore, OPM is not aware of any physician or other health care provider who requested an exclusion. The need to retain the current committee language is clear. Today, nearly 9 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents participate in the FEHBP. Approximately 2 million women of reproductive age rely on FEHBP for all their medical needs. Unfortunately, before 1998, the vast majority of these women were denied access to the broad range of safe and effective methods of contraception. It is clear that the need for prescription contraceptive coverage is well understood by women across the country. And while we in Congress debate this need and delay guaranteeing coverage to women across the country, states are taking up the call on their own. In fact there are 13 states--Maryland, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Vermont, California, Delaware, Iowa, and Rhode Island--who have passed their own contraceptive coverage legislation. Across America, the lack of equitable coverage of prescription contraceptives contributes to the fact that women today spend 68 percent more than men in health care costs. That's 68 percent. And this gap in coverage translates into $7,000 to $10,000 over a woman's reproductive lifetime. So I ask my colleagues: with 10 percent of all Federal employees earning less than $25,000 what do you think is the likely effect of these tremendous added costs for these Federal employees? Well, I'll tell you the effect is has: Many of them simply stop using contraceptives, or will never use them in the first place, because they simply can't afford to. And the impact of those decisions on these individuals and on this nation is a lasting and profound one. Women spend more than 90 percent of their reproductive life avoiding pregnancy, and a woman who doesn't use contraception is 15 times more likely to become pregnant than women who do. Fifteen times. And of the 3 million unintended pregnancies in the United States, half of them will end in abortion. Mr. President, I can't think of anyone I know, no matter their ideology or party, who doesn't want to see the instances of abortion in this nation reduced. Well, imagine if I told you we could do something about it. We vote year after year to restrict abortion coverage in FEHBP plans. My colleagues know that I vote against this restriction every time it comes up. At the same time I firmly believe that, if the Senate is going to vote against allowing FEHBP plans to cover abortion, then we should require this same plan to cover prescription contraceptives if they cover other prescription medications--prescription contraceptives which prevent unintended pregnancies that lead to abortion. That is what the committee language does. When the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that the use of birth control lowers the likelihood of abortion by a remarkable 85 percent, how can we ignore a provision like this which makes the use of birth control more affordable to our Federal employees, and do so--according to the Congressional Budget Office--with negligible cost to the Federal Government. The fact is, all methods of contraception are cost effective when compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. And with unplanned pregnancies linked to higher rates of premature and low-birth weight babies, costs can rise even above and beyond those associated with healthy births. As the American Journal of Public Health estimates, the cost under managed care for a year's dose of birth control pills is less than one- tenth of what it would cost for prenatal care and delivery. Whatever the reason, as an employer and model for the rest of the nation, the Federal Government should provide equal access to this most basic health benefit for women. The committee language would allow Federal employees to have that option. In closing, Mr. President, let me say that if we, as a nation, are truly committed to reducing abortion rates and increasing the quality of life for all Americans, then we need to begin focusing our attention on how to prevent unintended pregnancies. Retailing contraceptive coverage for Federal employees is a significant step in the right direction. I thank Chairman Campbell for again including this important language.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue we have been debating here in the Senate for the past week--the matter of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for China. Mr. President, my concerns about China are longstanding. They are based in no way on antipathy for the people of China, but rather China's authoritarian government--a government with a human rights track record that no one in good conscience could even defend. That is why I opposed the annual renewal of normal trade relations for China just last year. At the same time, we are faced with another irrefutable fact--China is becoming a member of the global trading community with or without the concurrence of the United States. The fundamental question we are faced with is whether the U.S. will be fully engaged with China during this process. A vote in favor of PNTR for China represents a recognition of reality, a recognition that China currently has complete access to our market while we have very limited access to theirs, a recognition that China is about to burst on to the international trading scene as a full fledged member of the World Trade Organization, a recognition that we would be actively choosing to put ourselves at a distinct disadvantage relative to our fellow WTO members should we fail to grant China PNTR. A ``yes'' vote is a recognition that our success in the new century's new global economy--which has arrived whether we care to admit it or not--will only be as great as our willingness to be a part of it, a recognition that we have, rightly or wrongly--and I would argue wrongly--already de-linked our trade policy with China from our human rights policy, and a recognition that the status quo has done little or nothing to help improve the lot of the typical Chinese man or woman. Mr. President, this is an imperfect bill we have before us. Personally, I would have preferred to support a bill improved by a number of amendments we have considered during our debate. Because I believe we must do our utmost to impact human rights in china, to protect against the potential impact of their massive cheap labor market, to preserve our national security and to ensure compliance with our trade agreements. For instance, as my colleague, Senator Wellstone, stated on the floor during the debate on his amendment conditioning PNTR on China's compliance with previous U.S.-China prison labor agreements, the 1992 agreement allowed on-site inspections by U.S. Customs officials in China to determine whether allegations that forced or prison labor were manufacturing products were true. Yet as soon as Taiwan's then-President Lee visited his alma mater, Cornell University, In 1992, China demonstrated its displeasure with the U.S. by among other things, suspending its agreement to allow U.S. inspections. China still refuses to abide by the terms of this agreement. That's why I supported Senator Wellstone's amendment because I believe it is time for China to start living up to the international economic role it seeks. Even absent that amendment, under the WTO, China is expected to abide by all trade agreements all the time--not just when it is in its best interest. And I will be looking to the WTO to hold them to that standard. Indeed, as a WTO member, China would be subject to reams of trade rules, and any of the organization's 138 members would demand that a rule be enforced. I believe that this perhaps, more than anything else, would spur the development of a market economy in china which is based on full compliance with its trade agreements. Moreover, it is encouraging that the Administration has put forth a plan to monitor China's compliance with the establishment of a new Commerce Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for China, who would be devoted to monitoring and enforcing China's WTO trade agreements. I am also encouraged by announcements that a ``rapid-response compliance'' team of 12 staff people working in the U.S. and China, and a China- specific subsidy enforcement team, will be established to monitor China's trade compliance. Further, Mr. President, the legislation itself requires an annual report from the USTR on Chinese compliance with WTO obligations and instructs the USTR to work to create a multilateral mechanism at the WTO to measure compliance. It also authorizes funding deemed necessary for the U.S. to monitor China's compliance. This is a step in the right direction and a necessary component of this bill. Another issue of utmost importance as we have reviewed PNTR from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the United States is our ability to maintain our national security. As my colleagues are well aware, one of a president's primary responsibilities under the Constitution is to conduct foreign affairs, and in doing so, Americans assume that a president is promoting our national security and interests abroad. As trade among nations is inexorably intertwined with political relations among nations, national security cannot--and should not--be considered in isolation. Therefore, it has been entirely appropriate that China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been part of this debate. I have long been concerned about transfers of technology by China that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missiles that could deliver them. Recent issues have involved China's sales to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya. On August 9, the CIA reported that China remained a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology and increased missile-related assistance to Pakistan in the second half of 1999. This is why I was a cosponsor of the Thompson-Torricelli bill and a supporter of their amendment. It is vital that the U.S. demonstrates that we will not turn a blind eye to China's proliferation and that we will actively take steps to induce change. The Thompson-Torricelli amendment did not address trade but, in fact, was a crucial part of this debate as China continues to facilitate the proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, to rogue countries. It would have provided an annual review mechanism, mandatory penalties, and an escalating scale of responses to Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missile technologies, and advanced conventional weapons. Accordingly, I consider the passage and enactment of the Thompson- Torricelli proposal in the future not simply to be good policy, but a critical companion to PNTR, and I hope we will revisit this critical issue in the 107th Congress. Mr. President, in addition to an in concert with our national security responsibilities, one of the most prominent national interests of the U.S. is the promotion of human rights around the world. Indeed, one of the ongoing and essential reasons I have voted against NTR status for China in the past was due to its infamous human rights abuses. During the consideration by the House, provisions were added to the PNTR legislation to monitor China's human rights by creating a Congressional-Executive Commission. The Commission will submit to Congress and the President an annual report of its findings, including as appropriate WTO-consistent recommendations for legislative or executive action. I also recognize that any U.S. trade sanction taken against China could be brought before the WTO for resolution by China. The WTO's focus is international trade law, not human rights. Accordingly, I supported Senator Helms' amendment that would require, as a condition of China receiving PNTR, that the President certify that China has taken actions regarding its human rights abuses and religious persecution. Just as importantly, I also supported another Helms amendment that called on U.S. businesses to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the basic American values of democracy, individual liberty and justice--a voluntary code of conduct. While both amendments were clearly defeated on grounds other than the merits of the issue itself, I make a personal appeal to America's businesses to conduct themselves in a manner that does credit to the ideas we hold dear as a nation. And I'm certain my colleagues agree that it is clearly in America's best interest--not to mention in keeping with the principles on which we were founded--to keep up the pressure on China to improve human rights for its own people and it is my fervent hope that we will do so. Mr. President, economically, U.S. companies have expressed to Congress throughout this debate that our future competitiveness and, ultimately, our economic success as a country will be hamstrung without this agreement--but with it, all of America will be better off. Again, while I would have preferred to vote on a bill strengthened by the amendments I have just discussed, I find that I must concur. For the past two decades, the U.S. has granted China low-tariff access to our market. And what have we gotten in return? Any number of different trade barriers which have severely limited U.S. access to China's market. To me, Mr. President, this has been far from fair. Under this lopsided arrangement where China maintains nearly complete access to our market while we face stiff barriers, this has contributed to the increased trade deficit with China. In 1992, our trade relations with China produced $7.5 billion in U.S. exports and $25.7 billion in U.S. imports from China. By last year, our exports rose to $13.1 billion while our imports from China reached an astonishing $81.8 billion--a $68.7 billion deficit. Now, some have argued that by improving the business climate in China, we're opening the floodgates for a massive outflow of U.S. businesses that will wish to relocate to that country. And certainly, China will be a more attractive place to do business should PNTR be approved. But we must keep in mind that, under our current trade arrangement with China, many U.S. businesses have chosen to relocate a degree of their operations to China because Chinese tariff and non-tariff barriers make it very difficult to export products directly to that country. In order to gain access to the market, many firms build plants in China--however, this strategy has been by no means without is own problems. In fact, businesses currently face a variety of discriminatory practices, including technology transfer, domestic content, and export performance requirements--in other words, that firms must export a certain share of their production. Once China becomes a member of the WTO--which of course we know is inevitable regardless of how we vote on PNTR--it will lower tariffs and eliminate a wide range of non-tariff barriers. What does this all mean for U.S. businesses? It means that many firms--especially small and medium-sized firms, so we're not just talking about large corporations here--might choose instead to export products directly to China. In other words, a greater investment in China under the provisions of the agreement that has been negotiated could promote an increase in U.S. exports to China. And that's not just me talking. According to the well-respected firm of Goldman Sachs, passage of PNTR for China can be expected to increase our exports to China by anywhere from $12.7 to $13.9 billion per year by 2005. In my home state of Maine, there are a variety of facets of our economy that can expect to benefit. Already, Maine is significantly engaged in trade with China--to the tune of $19 million in 1998. From agriculture to civil aircraft parts to insurance to wood products to high-tech industries and fish products, PNTR would allow these vital sectors of our economy to continue to complete on an even footing with our global competitors, and to do so under WTO enforced rules. For example, there would be zero tariffs on all semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and other information technology products by 2005. Tariffs on wood and paper would be reduced from between 12 to 25 percent to between 5 and 7.5 percent. And tariffs on fish products would be reduced from 20.5 to 11.4 percent. These are significant numbers for significant industries in Maine. Now, some will argue that PNTR will adversely affect our textile industries. Mr. President, as someone who has long been concerned about our trade agreements because of the effect they will have on the textile and apparel industry in the U.S. and in Maine, nobody is more sensitive to this issue that I am. Since 1994, Maine has lost 26,500 textile and apparel jobs, so I have scrutinized every trade agreement with this situation in mind. This legislation, however, represents an improvement over past trade agreements I have opposed. Again, the fact is, China will become part of the WTO. And all WTO members must abide by the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, or ATC, that phases out existing quotas and improves access to the markets of developing countries. In fact, all import quotas on textiles and apparels are to cease to exist by January 1, 2005, and China will reduce its tariffs on U.S. textiles and apparels from 25.4% to 11.7%. In other words, under the ATC, the U.S. will be required to end quotas as will China. I understand that the textile industry wanted a 10-year phase out period and that opponents have contended that this will allow massive Chinese imports to the U.S., but the U.S. has negotiated specific protections regarding textiles and the PNTR legislation itself contains anti-surge safeguards. Under the bilateral trade deal, the U.S. was able to retain the right to impose safeguard measures through 2008 and the PNTR legislation authorizes the president to take action if products from China are being imported in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruptions to the domestic producers. Mr. President, I understand that textiles and apparels are an inviting industry for China to utilize its vast labor pool, but I believe that what we have negotiated and are about to enact into law addresses this issue while still allowing us to be full participants in the future. And that is what this is about, Mr. President--the future--for both the United States and China. The fact of the matter is, recent economic development has led to a rising standard of living for the average Chinese. Does China have a long way to go? Absolutely. Is this a hopeful beginning? I believe it is. We are not going to change China overnight, with or without PNTR. But we must start somewhere. If we are not going to use the annual review of NTR for China as leverage for greater human rights in that nation-- and clearly, as I noted at the beginning, we seem to have long since conceded the point, despite my protestations--then it is time to bring the American promise to China through the promise of increased economic opportunity for the Chinese people. Change will be incremental at best. The Chinese government has proven itself a master of self-perpetuation. They still control the lion's share of finance and the means of production, and they are still a government not of the people or for the people. But under this new trade agreement, and as a member of the WTO, the Chinese government will have a little less control then they had before. They will be subject to more rules--and rules made by those outside of China. And they will know that if they want to be a part of the tremendous promise of the 21st century, this is their only course. Here at home, we have choices to make as well. Will we remain globally competitive? Will we embrace the opportunity to engage ourselves in a market of 1.3 billion people? Or will we tie oversees to the status quo, where China has access to our market, we don't have access to theirs, and the human rights issue gets no better than it has over the past ten years? The bottom line is that the U.S.-China trade agreement--which is contingent on PNTR--represents an unprecedented, albeit imperfect, opportunity for the U.S. to gain access to the China market, for the U.S. to increase trade and thereby increase innovation and prosperity for ourselves and the generations to come. For these reasons, I will support PNTR for China.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Amendments of 2000. This bill would clarify that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects breastfeeding under civil rights law, requiring that a woman cannot be fired or discriminated against in the workplace for expressing breast milk during her own lunch time or break time. When Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, I wonder if any of my colleagues considered the definition of ``pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions'' delineated in this law would not include breastfeeding. But unfortunately, courts across the country have not interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to include breastfeeding. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, women with infants and toddlers are the fastest growing segment of today's labor force. At least 50 percent of women who are employed when they become pregnant return to the labor force by the time their children are three months old. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted in 1978 and prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, courts have not interpreted the Act to include breastfeeding. Some employers deny women the opportunity to express milk; some women have been discharged for requesting to express milk during lunch and other regular breaks; some women have been harassed or discriminated against; some women have had their pay withheld or been taken off of shift work for saying that they wanted to pump milk. On the other hand, many employers have seen positive results from facilitating lactation programs in the workplace, including low absenteeism, high productivity, improved company loyalty, high employee morale, and lower health care costs. Parental absenteeism due to infant illness is three times greater among the parents of formula-fed children than those that are breastfed. Worksite programs that aim to improve infant health may also bring about a reduction in parental absenteeism and health insurance costs. There is no doubt as to the health benefit breastfeeding brings to both mothers and children. Breastmilk is easily digested and assimilated, and contains all the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients they require in their first five to six months of life. Furthermore, important antibodies, proteins, immune cells, and growth factors that can only be found in breast milk. Breastmilk is the first line of immunization defense and enhances the effectiveness of vaccines given to infants. Research studies show that children who are not breastfed have higher rates of mortality, meningitis, some types of cancers, asthma and other respiratory illnesses, bacterial and viral infections, diarrhoeal diseases, ear infections, allergies, and obesity. Other research studies have shown that breastmilk and breastfeeding have protective effects against the development of a number of chronic diseases, including juvenile diabetes, lymphomas, Crohn's disease, celiac disease, some chronic liver diseases, and ulcerative colitis. A number of studies have shown that breastfed children have higher IQs at all ages. Mr. President, this is a simple bill--it simply inserts the word ``breastfeeding'' in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It will change the law to read that employment discrimination ``because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, or related medication conditions'' is not permitted. I believe that it is absolutely critical to support mothers across the country--they are, of course, raising the very future of our country. And we should ensure that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act covers this basic fundamental part of mothering. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering passage of S. 1089, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2000. I have also filed a manager's amendment which makes a series of necessary changes to the reported bill. The Coast Guard has been defined as ``a unique instrument of national security.'' But it is so much more than simply one-fifth of our Armed Forces. The Coast Guard's peacetime missions continue to expand as our nation asks more and more of these 36,000 men and women who serve our country. From its traditional roles of rescuing mariners in distress and protecting the marine environment, to more recent responsibilities including intercepting illegal drugs and alien migrants bound for U.S. shores, the Coast Guard has proven time and again why this agency is so valuable. Whether it is protecting mariners along the Maine coastline, managing inland waterway barge traffic on the Mississippi River, or enforcing fisheries conservation laws in the Bering Sea, the Coast Guard provides an indispensable service to our nation. Despite the fact that demands on the agency continue to grow, the Coast Guard, like the other four military services, faces critical readiness problems. In January, the Commandant of the Coast Guard was forced to cut back all routine, non-emergency operations by 10 percent. Unfortunately, on May 30, the Commandant announced a further reduction in missions which resulted in an overall 25 percent reduction in routine operations. This cut resulted in a 20 percent reduction in fisheries law enforcement patrols in the Gulf of Maine and forced two Portland-based Coast Guard cutters to decrease their at sea time by nearly 65 percent this year. Mr. President, this is simply unacceptable. Several weeks ago, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001 was enacted. This bill contained $700 million in supplemental emergency appropriations for the Coast Guard. It is now incumbent upon the Administration to declare the existing readiness shortfalls and reduction in operations as an emergency condition which requires supplemental funding. Only then will the Coast Guard receive this critical funding and be able to resume normal operations protecting our coasts, our resources and our citizens. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate attempts to solve the Coast Guard's most immediate problems and provides future funding levels and other readiness improvements that would restore the Coast Guard's ability to continue operating at normal levels and prevent reductions in the future. S. 1089 authorizes the Coast Guard at $3.95 billion for fiscal year 2000, a $200 million increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. It also authorizes $4.75 billion for fiscal year 2001, an $800 million increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. In addition, the bill authorizes such funds as may be necessary in fiscal year 2002, depending on the Administration's request. It funds critical readiness areas, such as increases in military pay and housing allowances as well as enhanced recruiting programs. In addition, the bill authorizes several important procurement projects including the Integrated Deepwater System that will recapitalize the Coast Guard's fleet of aging ships and aircraft over the next ten years. Moreover, it authorizes the modernization of the Coast Guard's National Distress and Response system, our country's 1950's era maritime emergency communication system. S. 1089 also authorizes several management improvements requested by the Coast Guard to provide parity between Coast Guard military members and other Department of Defense service members. The bill authorizes end-of-year military strength and training levels that would address personnel shortages created by a Service that may have been too aggressive in its streamlining initiatives during the last decade. This bill authorizes funding to recapitalize the LORAN-C radio navigation system, which continues to be the primary navigation system used by many vessel and aircraft owners. It also authorizes the Coast Guard to operate excess Navy patrol craft in their mission to stop the flow of illegal drugs across the Caribbean Basin. Finally, S. 1089 addresses various personnel management and marine safety issues to improve day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard. During the winter of 1999-2000, my home state of Maine experienced severe freezing on our rivers and bays. Without the work of Coast Guard icebreakers, which cleared waterways for heating oil barges, Maine could have suffered from a heating oil shortage. The work of these small cutters is critical to Maine and the entire northeast. As such, this bill requires the Coast Guard to conduct an in depth study of future domestic icebreaking requirements. It further requires the Coast Guard to operate and maintain their fleet of harbor icebreakers until the Congress has had an adequate period to evaluate the agency's recommendations. Mr. President, I believe the Coast Guard is up to the challenge of being the world's premier maritime organization despite the readiness problems it currently faces. It is my belief this bill provides the Coast Guard with the support it needs to meet that challenge. Let me take this opportunity to thank Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, the ranking member on the Committee, Senator Kerry, the ranking member on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and the other Committee members for their bipartisan support of the Coast Guard throughout this process. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment and passage of S. 1089.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Once again, I thank the chairman for his support of agriculture throughout my State, and I praise him for your fine leadership as Chair of the Subcommittee. Quality and Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continuing support for the New England, Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory in Orono, Maine. Quite frankly, with his help and the support of his Subcommittee, we have literally snatched this USDA-Agricultural Research Service potato research laboratory--so important to the Maine potato industry--from the jaws of defeat ever since the Administration called for its closing in 1995. Not only have we kept the doors open, but with his support, the research facility on the University of Maine campus in Orono now has not only Dr. Wayne Honeycutt as its very capable lead scientist, but has added two plant pathologists, a research chemist, and a soon to be added research agronomist because of his support last year. I want to once again re-emphasize just how critical the lab's survival is to the state of Maine, its potato growers, and its economy. Ninety-five percent of the potato acreage in the six states in the New England region are in Maine, and the lab has the benefit of being in close proximity to the grower's fields. There has been a long and productive history of collaborative potato research involving the state, the university research program, and private agricultural interests. The laboratory's last need is for a soil physicist to complete its scientific staff and not for a soil pathologist as originally requested and for which $300,000 is provided for as stated on page 31 of the Report Language for S. 2536. I request that this technical correction be made for a soil physicist.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, it is with profound sadness and the heaviest of hearts that I come to the floor today to pay tribute to the memory of a friend, a colleague, and a man who brought honor upon the State of Georgia, our country, and the institution of the Senate--Paul Coverdell. My deepest sympathies go out to his wife Nancy, Paul's family, friends and his staff at this most difficult of times. It is tragedies like this that remind us that, beyond the policy and the politics and the tremendous gravity of the issues we deliberate-- beyond the grandeur of this Chamber and the history we write on a daily basis--we are at heart an institution of individuals--of people. And when one of our own is lost to us forever, all of us are diminished by that loss. I first met Paul when I was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and he came before us as President Bush's Director of the Peace Corps. I recall being struck not only by his obvious qualifications for the job, but by his warmth and his obvious esteem for the mission he was chosen to fulfill. To help foster the ideals of freedom and democracy for people throughout the world was for Paul a high and noble calling. And it was one he answered with typical energy and enthusiasm, optimism and hope. Indeed, when I think about all that Paul was--all that he symbolized, all that he meant to those who cared about him and the people he served--the single word that comes to my mind is, ``decency''. Paul Coverdell was many things: a devoted husband, a talented legislator, a strong and principled leader--but above all else, Paul was simply one of the most decent human beings one could ever hope to know. And any of us should be so fortunate to be remembered as that. I well remember when I first came to the Senate from the House in 1995, Paul had of course been here for 2 years, and he knew how difficult it was to get started, to get your feet firmly planted on the ground in these foreign surroundings. And so he helped us freshmen--and woman--to find our way around, to set up offices, to figure out the basics of how things work around here. While it is perhaps true that none of us have ever really figured out that secret, Paul and is staff certainly did their best to give advice and lend a helping hand. But then, knowing Paul as I do now, that really comes as no big surprise. Paul was always helping people, always contributing to the world around him. From his service in the U.S. Army to the state legislature to Director of the Peace Corps to United States Senator, Paul believed that to serve others was a privilege, not a burden. He truly believed that he could made a difference in people's lives. And he was right. What a a lesson his life can teach an often cynical world. We ask ourselves, what can one person do? What kind of a positive impact can government truly have on the lives of others? What happened to the idea of public service as a noble calling? To those questions there is one simple answer--people like Paul Coverdell exist in the world: Good, honorable, trustworthy people who call us to our better nature, who exemplify what the framers of this Nation had in mind when they created what they hoped would one day be the greatest deliberative body on earth. He personified another virtue that often seems in short supply in a world where the volume of one's indignation is all too frequently the sole measure of one's passion--and that virtue is civility. Paul let the weight of his arguments speak for themselves, and where there were disagreements he respected those who disagreed with him. Perhaps that is why he engendered such deep respect in return. It is little wonder, then, that Paul rose so rapidly through the ranks of leadership. He had a keen grasp of policy and detail, and nobody worked harder on behalf of his constituents and his party. He was truly a ``legislator's legislator''--not only creative in developing solutions, but always focused on moving the ball forward, on producing results for the people of Georgia and America whether in the areas of education, keeping drugs out of the hands of our children, or allowing hardworking Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. In fact, I remember at one point my staff commented to me that it seemed like everything we were considering in the Senate seemed to have Paul's stamp on it. But that was typical of Paul. He never stood still--and he never forgot the sacred trust that must exist between elected officials and those they are obliged to serve. Just as important, Paul was a man for whom his pledge was his bond-- and that only counts for everything in this institution. His words had credibility, his ideas merit, and is actions sincerity. He made me proud to be a member of the United States Senate. He made us all proud. Once again, my heart goes out to Paul's wife Nancy, his family, friends and all of his staff--whom I know are heartbroken as we all are--and to the people of the State of Georgia, who have lost a great leader and true friend. He will surely be missed by all of us who were fortunate to have known him, but his legacy will just as surely live on in all those whose lives he has touched.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, to introduce a revised version of 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 (NEA) and National PTA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE)--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 (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement. As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980. Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008. Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent report by the NEA identified $332 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 ceiling 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 nearly $2.5 billion over the past four 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. 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 he 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 foregone 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 inserted in the Record following my statement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, to introduce a revised version of 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 (NEA) and National PTA, and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE)--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 (GAO) in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public schools needing extensive repair or replacement. As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 1999 stated that the average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980. Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 million by 2008. Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it will cost $112 billion just to bring our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent report by the NEA identified $332 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 ceiling 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 nearly $2.5 billion over the past four 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. 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 he 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 foregone 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 inserted in the Record following my statement.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. The second Forest Legacy project, Mr. Chairman, known as Mt. Blue/Tumbledown Mountain, is a two-phase project totaling approximately 33,400 acres and will protect some of Maine's most scenic areas--including Tumbledown Mountain, Jackson Mountain, Blueberry Mountain and trailheads leading to these peaks.

Ms. SNOWE. Once again, I thank my distinguished colleague from Washington State and praise his continuing efforts for the conservation of our nation's private lands, especially those of great importance to the people of Maine.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Maine and the nation have an opportunity to accomplish an enormously meaningful level of forest protection in Maine's 10 million acre Northern Forest if significant funding for Forest Service accounts is allocated for Maine projects in fiscal year 2001. In the last two years, an astounding 20 percent of Maine's total forestland acreage has changed ownership, an occurrence that represents a significant shift in the pattern of stable long-term ownership and use that has characterized the Maine woods for at least the last hundred years.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank you for your strong support for Forest Legacy funding in FY 2000 in approving $3 million Title 6 funding for Maine for Phase I of the 656,000 acre West Branch project. This funding, along with the $2 million already allocated from the state grant portion of LWCF, will complement the $4 million being secured through non-federal sources for the conservation and protection of 70,000 acres of undeveloped forestland, including more than 100 miles of undeveloped shoreline along Moosehead Lake, Seboomook Lake, and several smaller lakes.

Ms. SNOWE. I also want to thank you for your appropriations support for funds for the Pingree Forest, which is an excellent example of private sector cooperation and conservation, while at the same time preserving the working forests of our State. The Pingree Family of Maine has been exemplary in the way it has managed its lands for seven generations--160 years. As you are aware, the Pingree Family has entered into the Pingree Forest Partnership with the New England Forestry Foundation, which has committed to raise $30 million for a conservation easement on 754,673 acres of land in Northern and Western Maine.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank you for your close scrutiny of the merits of this project and your support for what is currently the largest single land conservation project in the world. I would like to point out that, for any appropriation to work under the agreement, I urge you to allocate the funds through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to the New England Forestry Foundation, which will hold the easement for the Pingree land.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4810-- legislation that would dramatically reduce one of the most insidious aspects of the tax code: the marriage penalty. As my colleagues are aware, there are several primary causes of the ``marriage penalty'' within the tax code, including different tax rate schedules and different standard deductions for joint filers versus single filers. In terms of the impact of these differing tax provisions, the marriage penalty is most pronounced for two-earner couples in which the husband and wife have nearly equal incomes. While this may not have been as noticeable in society 30 or 40 years ago, the demographic changes that have occurred since the 1960s--with more married women entering the workforce to help support their families--has led to a significant increase in the share of couples who suffer from the marriage penalty. Make no mistake, the impact of the marriage penalty is severe. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 42% of married couples incur marriage penalties that average nearly $1,400. When measured by income category, fully 12% of couples with incomes below $20,000 incurred a marriage penalty in 1996; 44% of couples with incomes of $20,000 to $50,000; and 55% of couples with incomes above $50,000. In addition, according to CBO, empirical evidence suggests that the marriage penalty may affect work patterns, particularly for a couple's second earner. Specifically, because filing a joint return often imposes a substantially higher tax rate on a couple's second earner, the higher rate reduces the second earner's after-tax wage and may cause that individual to work fewer hours or not at all. As a result, economic efficiency is harmed in the overall economy. Furthermore, while I would hope that the tax code would not be a factor in a couple's decision to marry or stay single, the simple fact is that a couple's tax status could worsen if married and could, therefore, impact a couple's decision to marry. Therefore, we should eliminate this potential barrier to marriage and ensure that couples make one of life's biggest decisions based on their values and beliefs--not on the federal tax code. As a strong opponent of the marriage penalty, I am an original cosponsor of S. 15, legislation introduced by Senator Hutchison that eliminates the marriage penalty through a proposal known as ``income splitting.'' Under this approach, a married couple would add up all their income and then split it in half. Each spouse would then file as a single individual and pay taxes on his or her half of the total income, with exemptions, deductions and credits being split evenly between the two spouses. Last year, to advance this legislation or any other proposal that would provide marriage penalty relief, I offered an amendment during the markup of the FY 2000 budget resolution that ensured a significant reduction in--or the outright elimination of--the marriage penalty would be a central component of any tax cut package adopted during last year's reconciliation process. Later that summer, in accordance with my budget amendment, the $792 billion tax cut reconciliation package that was passed by the Senate included such relief, as did the final House-Senate conference report. However, just as President Clinton vetoed the tax bill in 1995 that included marriage penalty relief, last year's tax bill was vetoed as well. In an effort to address this issue outside a broader tax package, the House of Representatives passed legislation earlier this year--by a bipartisan vote of 268 to 158--that would reduce the marriage penalty. The Senate considered its version of the legislation in April, but a Democratic filibuster prevented us from bringing the bill to a final vote. Today, we are considering nearly identical legislation yet again, but--thanks to the budget reconciliation process--we are assured it will come to a final vote. Mr. President, H.R. 4810 would dramatically reduce the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction for married couples relative to single filers; expanding the 15 percent and 28 percent income tax brackets for married couples to twice the size of the corresponding tax brackets for single filers; increasing the phase-out range of the Earned Income Credit for couples filing joint returns; and permanently exempting family tax credits from the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. I am especially pleased that the legislation does not penalize families in which a spouse foregoes an income to raise children. Unfortunately, the proposal that is being espoused by the minority would do just that. Specifically, by allowing married couples to file their taxes as if they were single, the substitute proposal would provide relief only to families in which both spouses have taxable incomes. As a result, if a spouse has no earned income by virtue of the fact that he or she is working at home to raise the family's children--but doesn't actually earn a salary for each of the myriad of tasks this profession entails-- the couple would receive none of the benefits of the larger tax brackets or standard deduction that a single taxpayer currently receives because only one-half of the couple has an income to report. I believe a spouse's decision to work outside the home and utilize daycare, or work at home to raise children, should be made with only the best interests of the family in mind--not the tax code. We should not take a significant step to eliminate the marriage penalty only to replace it with a ``homemaker penalty''--and I'm pleased that H.R. 4810 ensures that the benefits it provides can be used by all couples, including those in which a spouse foregoes an income to raise a family. It is my hope that, by considering this package of marriage penalty relief proposals as a stand-alone bill--and not as part of a broader, and potentially controversial, tax cut package--we will not only pass this legislation with strong bipartisan support, but ultimately send a bill to the President that he will sign for the benefit of all married couples. The bottom line is that we should not condone or accept a tax code that penalizes married couples or discourages marriage, and this bill provides the Senate with the opportunity to correct this inequity in a straightforward manner. Ultimately, the bill we are considering is not simply about providing the American people with a reasonable and rational tax cut--rather, it is about correcting a gross discrepancy in the tax code that unfairly impacts married couples. Accordingly, even though individual members of this body disagree on a wide variety of tax cuts policies, I would hope we would all agree that the act of marriage should not be penalized by the Internal Revenue Code--and would support S. 4810 accordingly.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this resolution is introduced to honor veterans exposed to radiation while serving in the U.S. military. As many of my colleagues are no doubt aware, many veterans, veterans organizations, and scientists believe that exposure to environmental toxins or unknown diseases during military service has left thousands of veterans vulnerable to an array of disabilities and medical conditions. Over the years, Congress has responded to the concerns of veterans with claims resulting from service in nuclear testing areas, as well as Vietnam veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange, and Persian Gulf veterans suffering with the Persian Gulf War Illness. Authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide health care for diseases possibly linked to radiation has been made permanent. The Department of Veterans Affairs is authorized by Congress to provide special priority for enrollment for health services to any veteran exposed to ionizing radiation while participating in the nuclear weapons testing program, or if he or she served with the U.S. occupation forces in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These veterans are eligible to participate in the VA ionizing radiation registry examination program, under which the VA will perform a complete physical examination, including all necessary tests, for each veteran who requests it. The VA also pays compensation to veterans and their survivors if the veteran is determined to have a disability due to radiation exposure while in service. Unfortunately, Mr. President, with some disorders, evidence of a service-connection is simply not conclusive. That is why Congress has in some cases permitted a ``presumption'' of a service-connection, so that veterans can be provided much-needed care, and given appropriate compensation, while science endeavors to verify whether a correlation can be established between military service and the subsequent development of a given medical disorder. Authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical treatment for diseases possibly linked to radiation has been made permanent by Congress. In 1987, Congress found that due to the fact that the evidence of exposure-level risk could not be conclusively verified, our national veterans benefits policy should depend on correlation of various diseases with radiation exposure. Public Law 100-321 included language establishing a presumption that 13 diseases would be presumed to be service-connected if they developed in veterans whose service histories included active duty in a ``radiation-risk activity.'' Since 1987, the list established under Public Law 100-321 has been expanded to include additional diseases, totalling approximately 16. Mr. President, the resolution I am introducing today would recognize the contributions, sacrifices, and distinguished service of Americans exposed to radiation or radioactive materials in the line of military duty and authorize a day of remembrance for these men and women. From 1945 to 1963, the U.S. exploded approximately 235 nuclear devices, potentially exposing an estimated 220,000 military personnel to unknown levels of radiation. In addition, roughly 195,000 servicemembers have been identified as participants in the post-WWII occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Many of these veterans claimed that low levels of radiation released during the testing, or exposure to radiation in service in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, may be a cause of certain medical conditions that have developed since that service. Under my resolution, Sunday July 16, 2000, the 55th anniversary of the first atomic explosion--the Trinity Shot in New Mexico--is designated as a ``National Day of Remembrance'' honoring veterans exposed to radiation in the line of military duty, and the President is urged to issue a proclamation observing the day and paying tribute to these Americans who have had to fight so hard to get the recognition and benefits they deserve. The measure also expresses the sense of the Senate that the Department of Veterans Affairs should take steps to ensure that veterans exposed to radiation in service to their country are awarded the benefits and services they deserve. Mr. President, the nation has a solemn responsibility to veterans who are injured, or who incur a disease, while serving in the military, including the provision of health care, cash payments, and other benefits that may be awarded to veterans who experience disabilities resulting from military service. This precedent is well-established and should not be undercut or weakened. I hope that my colleagues will join me in a strong show of support for this resolution and the men and women exposed to radiation in the line of duty. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Collins in offering this amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to make available $5 million in emergency supplemental funding for the restoration of Atlantic salmon. This is an issue that is critically important to the State of Maine. In 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) enthusiastically endorsed the Maine Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan as the best possible approach to restoring these fish to Maine rivers. Unfortunately, this five-year plan was essentially shut down less than halfway into its implementation when the Services re-initiated a proposed listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on November 17, 1999. This short-sighted action has placed in jeopardy an innovative and cooperative restoration strategy involving habitat restoration, water quality improvement, and widespread restocking programs statewide. The Services have yet to demonstrate what additional benefits will be afforded the salmon through such a designation despite my repeated requests for such information. We in Maine have worked hard and made many sacrifices to restore our treasured Atlantic salmon. I continue to believe that a fully implemented Maine Plan remains the best means of restoring these fish and there is no benefit in cutting short such a promising effort. Unfortunately, the Services have entered into an agreement with litigants that requires them to make their final listing determination by November 17, 2000. This action precludes the possibility of seeking a six month extension, as allowed under the ESA, to resolve any questions of scientific uncertainty. Many such questions have been raised. Questions range from whether or not these fish actually constitute a genetically distinct population segment as defined by the ESA to whether the Services' river specific hatchery stocking program has produced any benefits and is an appropriate restoration strategy. I have asked the National Academy of Sciences to thoroughly review the quality of the science that forms the basis of this proposed listing. This information will guide future restoration efforts in Maine. The funding under consideration today will make such a review possible. Additionally, the Services have not undertaken a quantitative risk assessment to ascertain the relative importance of various factors which may influence salmon survival. Without such a risk assessment, we have no way of knowing if the Services are focusing on the right problems or potential problems and there is no clear way for the Services to evaluate what more needs to be done. In essence, the Services have no way of knowing if they are asking the impossible of the State. The State of Maine has been asking for such an assessment for over one year. Since the beginning, the Maine Plan has been incredibly dynamic and has evolved to address new problems or concerns. In fact, the State has addressed in some form every concern raised by the Services. This risk assessment will provide the necessary guidance to again strengthen salmon restoration efforts and target limited resources most effectively. This risk assessment is but one example of the critical activities that need to take place prior to November 17th if the Services are to make an informed decision as to whether or not to list. The State of Maine is poised to take further action, such as upgrading weirs at the river mouths, conducing genetic analyses, and testing fish marking techniques, that might render a listing unnecessary. Unfortunately, despite the tripling of the State budget for salmon restoration, there is not sufficient funding available to complete these critical activities. If the State is able to complete these priority items prior to the November 17th deadline, we may be able to render a listing unnecessary. I would hope that the Services will adhere to the letter and spirit of the Endangered Species Act and fully consider the restoration activities paid for by these funds when making their final determination whether or not to list. I would like to thank Senators Gorton, Byrd, and Stevens for all of their assistance in making sure that this money is made available to Maine. I know that they share my concerns regarding the importance of the recovery of U.S. salmon populations, particularly Senators Gorton and Stevens who have been working hard with people in their home states to restore populations of Pacific salmon. The funding we are seeking today was originally included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I am pleased that the managers acknowledge how time sensitive this issue is and are receptive to including it on this bill which is moving more rapidly. I can assure you that this money will make a tremendous difference in our efforts to restore Atlantic salmon in Maine. Thank you.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed George Singal, the President's nominee for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, and rise to express my strong unequivocal support for his nomination. In advance, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for proceeding so expeditiously on Mr. Singal's nomination--especially when considering his nomination was transmitted to the Senate just six weeks ago. In addition, I would like to thank the Majority Leader for bringing his nomination to the floor so rapidly--just three days after being reported by the Judiciary Committee. George Singal immigrated along with his family to the United States at a very young age, and has become a living embodiment of the American dream. He possesses a superior legal mind, has distinguished himself within the legal profession, and is deeply committed to upholding the very highest standards of our nation's judicial system. Moreover, Mr. Singal has a wide range of experience serving as both a prosecutor and as a defense attorney--a deep understanding and appreciation for the constitutionally mandated roles of the three branches of government--and the enormous respect of his colleagues, a number of whom have contacted me in support of his nomination. Finally, and just as telling, he enjoys bipartisan support across the State of Maine. Consider what George's background says about his character and qualifications. Born in a refugee camp in Italy after his family fled before the German invasion of his native Poland, he arrived in Bangor along with his sister and widowed mother in 1949. After graduating summa cum laude from my alma mater, the University of Maine in 1967, and becoming only the second recipient of the highly respected Root-Tilden Scholarship in the history of the university, George briefly left our state to receive his law degree from Harvard University three years later. Indeed, not one to forget his roots, George immediately returned to Maine to begin his legal career in Bangor, serving as the Assistant County Attorney for Penobscot County from 1971 to 1973, even as he worked his way to a partnership in the respected law firm of Gross, Minsky, Mogul, & Singal--the firm in which he has remained to this day. Having served on a wide variety of professional committees--including the advisory committee for the District of Maine that was assembled pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act--George's impeccable credentials and reputation for impartiality led to his appointment in 1993 to the Governor's Judicial Selection Committee by my husband, Governor McKernan. That appointment, and the fact that he now chairs this prestigious committee that assists in the appointment of judges across the state under Independent Governor Angus King, is why it's a special pleasure for me to speak on his behalf today. Of note, the enthusiastic support George has received from both sides of the aisle in Maine speaks volumes about Mr. Singal's talents and work ethic, as well as the universal respect he has earned over his years of work in the Maine judicial system. Throughout his career, Mr. Singal displayed remarkable legal acumen, thanks in large part to his thorough, reflective and balanced approach to his work. This approach has justifiably earned him accolades throughout his career, including his selection to the American College of Trial Lawyers--an award given to less than one percent of trial lawyers nationwide--and his naming to the Best Lawyers in America, a designation that is made by his colleagues in the legal profession. Mr. Singal possesses precisely the kind of judicial temperament and experience I think we should expect from all our judicial nominees. I am certain this is due, in no small part, to his family's background and the perseverance and work ethic they instilled in him as an immigrant brought to the United States by the ravages of World War II. Further, his work during the late-1960s in the office of then- Congressman Bill Hathaway undoubtedly impressed upon him the need for balance between the three branches of government. In fact, it is his broad range of experiences that has undoubtedly instilled in Mr. Singal a proper perspective on the appropriate role and appropriate constitutional limitations of each branch of our government. Clearly, George Singal has not only the professional qualifications to serve us well on the federal circuit, but also the personal credentials to match. My work with George over the past few weeks has only confirmed what I had already heard--this is a man of the highest integrity and personal character. In conclusion, I am most proud to be able to express my support for Mr. George Singal. He has the qualifications, the intellect, the experience, the perspective, and the integrity to be an outstanding judge. Accordingly, I am pleased that my colleagues support his confirmation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.