Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to introduce a bill that will reauthorize the most important Federal fisheries management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In 1996, Congress last reauthorized this law through enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). The SFA contained the most substantial improvements to fisheries conservation since the original passage of the Magnuson Act in 1976. The SFA made wholesale changes in fisheries management. For the first time, it required the regional fishery management councils and the Secretary of Commerce to prevent and end overfishing, reduce bycatch, protect essential fish habitat, and consider fishing communities in the regulatory decision-making process. These provisions of the SFA have presented a great challenge to the National Marine Fisheries Service the regional councils, and the fishermen who are regulated under this law. While the goals and intent of the SFA were certainly laudable, four years later, we still have a significant amount of work to do in that regard. Therefore, today, Mr. President, I introduce the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2000 with several very specific goals in mind. First and foremost, this bill provides for a major increase in funding. While the demands on fisheries managers at the local and federal levels have increased exponentially, funding has essentially remained level. One of the most serious problems in fisheries management is a lack of basic information on the resource. This bill, through increased funding and the establishment of two programs, will go a long way toward filling existing critical gaps in our information databases. For the past several years, Senators Kerry, Gregg, and I have worked to establish a cooperative research program in New England fisheries. This program, which requires federal and local scientists to partner with commercial fishermen in the gathering and development of fisheries data, has proven quite successful. Therefore, this bill would establish a National Cooperative Research and Management program to be administered by the agency in conjunction with the regional councils and local fishermen. In addition, the bill also establishes a National Cooperative Enforcement program. This too is based on existing programs in several states, where state marine law enforcement officers are deputized by their federal counterparts to help enforce conservation and management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other marine related laws. Lack of enforcement of fisheries laws has been a constant problem for fishermen and fisheries managers. This bill also addresses one of the most serious and emotional questions in fisheries management--individual fishing quotas (IFQs). The SFA included a five year moratorium on new IFQ programs and required the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the issue. The NAS report issued a series of recommendations on IFQs. The first recommendation was for Congress to lift the existing moratorium on new IFQ programs and authorize the councils to design and implement new IFQs. The moratorium is set to expire on October 1, 2000. This recommendation has received a lot of publicity. However, the NAS report contained a number of other recommendations to Congress that were to be considered in conjunction with the authorization of any new IFQ programs. These recommendations concern substantive issues, yet they have not received the level of attention that they fully deserve. For instance, the NAS recommended that Congress should encourage cost recovery and extraction of profits from new IFQ programs through fees, annual taxes, and zero-revenue auctions. The NAS also recommended that the Act be amended to allow the public to capture windfall gains generated from the initial allocation of IFQs. Additional recommendations include requiring accumulation limits and determining rules for foreign ownership. Mr. President, the NAS report contains important recommendations that should be thoroughly examined by Congress and the public. I understand that in some regions of the country, both commercial and recreational fishermen want to immediately move to the design and implementation of new IFQ programs. However, it is clear that many of the important questions associated with any new IFQ program have not been fully considered and immediate implementation of such programs could have deleterious affects on fisheries and fishing communities. For that reason, the bill I introduce today contains a three year extension of the existing moratorium. This provision simply recognizes that fisheries conservation and management must be approached from a long-term perspective. Widespread implementation of IFQ programs will drastically alter the face of fishing communities and the way we pursue fisheries conservation measures. If IFQs are indeed the answer that many of their advocates claim, then surely IFQs will still be a viable option in three years. But, a short-term extension of the moratorium, as this bill proposes, will force the Congress and fishing communities to consider the many other necessary questions related to IFQs. The NAS report recommended Congress provide guidance on these issues because they are clearly questions of national concern, and I suggest that we follow that course. Mr. President, this bill provides a number of other improvements, including increased flexibility to the agency to reaffirm the original intent of Congress that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' solution to fisheries management. Moreover, the bill would provide for an expanded national observer program to help collect critical information. It is widely recognized that we need to increase our use of observers to gain data on species composition, age structure, and bycatch. The bill also establishes a pilot program to help fisheries managers begin the move toward ecosystem-based management. While it is clear that we do not currently have sufficient information of resources to make a full shift to ecosystem-based management, it is equally clear that we need to move in this direction and a pilot program can illustrate for us how to do this. Finally, I would like to say that this bill represents a significant amount of work by the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Over the past year, the Subcommittee held six hearings in various parts of the country on the Magnuson Stevens Act. We begin the process in Washington, DC, and then visited fishing communities in New England, The Gulf of Mexico, the North Pacific and the Pacific. In this bill, I have tried to incorporate many of the suggestions we heard from those men and women who fish for a living and who are most affected by the law and its regulations. I view this bill as a basis from which I intend to work with other members of the Subcommittee so that the Commerce Committee can consider it in executive session in July. I look forward to providing our fishing communities with a bill that will improve lives in a meaningful way.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment being offered by Senators Jeffords and Frist on genetic nondiscrimination in health insurance. This amendment, based on language I authored with Senator Jeffords and Senator Frist, provides strong protection to all Americans against the unfair and improper use of genetic information for insurance purposes. This amendment will: Prohibit insurers from collecting genetic information Prohibit insurers from using predictive genetic information, such as family background or the results of a genetic test, to deny coverage or to set premiums and rates, and Require insurers to inform patients of their health plan's confidentiality practices and safeguards. The need for this legislation is clear. As Senators Daschle and Dodd pointed out this morning the announcement this week that scientists have completed their mapping of the human gene is a remarkable and historic event. It opens the door to new scientific breakthroughs that may well help lead us one day to the cause and the cure for cancer, for Parkinson's and for Alzheimer's disease. This remarkable new tool has the potential, unfortunately, to become a dangerous tool. Because knowledge is power--Mr. President--and an insurance company could use genetic information to deny insurance to an individual because they know that the person is predisposed to a particular disease or health problem. Consider a letter that I received from a constituent, Bonnie Lee Tucker, of Hampden, Maine, who wrote: I'm a third generation [breast cancer] survivor and as of last October I have nine immediate women in my family that have been diagnosed with breast cancer . . . I want my daughter to be able to live a normal life and not worry about breast cancer. I want to have the BRCA test [for breast cancer] done but because of the insurance risk for my daughters future I don't dare. Another of my constituents, Dr. Tracy Weisberg, Medical Director of the Breast Cancer at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute, told me that while she has offered screening for the breast cancer gene to approximately 35 women in 1997, only two opted for the test. She said that many of these women did not undergo testing because of their fear of discrimination in health insurance. Dr. Weisberg emphasized the need for legislation to protect patients from this type of discrimination, so that they could make genetic testing decisions based on what they believe is best for their health, and not based on fear. As a legislator who has worked for many years on the issue of breast cancer, and as a woman with a history of breast cancer in her family, I am delighted with the possibilities for further treatment advances based on the discoveries of two genes related to breast cancer--BRCA 1 and BRCA2. Women who inherit mutated forms of either gene have an 85 percent risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime, and a 50 percent risk of developing ovarian cancer. Although there is no known treatment to ensure that women who carry the mutated gene do not develop breast cancer, genetic testing makes it possible for carriers of these mutated genes to take extra precautions--such as mammograms and self-examinations--in order to detect cancer at its earliest states. This discovery is truly a momentous breakthrough. But the tremendous promise of genetic testing is being significantly threatened by insurance companies that use the results of genetic testing to deny or limit coverage to consumers. Unfortunately, this practice is not uncommon. In fact, one survey of individuals with a known genetic condition in their family revealed that 22 percent had been denied health insurance coverage because of genetic information. And consider that people may be unwilling to participate in potentially ground-breaking research trials because they do not want to reveal information about their genetic status. At NIH, 32 percent of women eligible for genetic testing for the breast cancer gene declined to undergo testing--the majority of those who declined cited privacy issues and a fear of discrimination as their reason. Mr. President, this is simply unacceptable. The Jeffords, Frist, Snowe amendment before us today will go a long way toward putting a halt to the unfair practice of discriminating on the basis of genetic information, and to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of genetic information. Now it's up to us to act by passing this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation sent to us by the House concerning disclosure for so-called ``Section 527 organizations''. I want to thank the efforts of those involved in making this day a reality, and that includes a bipartisan group from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill who have taken a leadership role in working toward restoring Americans' faith in its election system. Senator McCain's herculean efforts and leadership on this issue have made today's vote possible. In addition, Senator Feingold's leadership has been invaluable, and Senators Lieberman and Jeffords and Congressmen Shays, Meehan, and Castle, have worked very hard to ensure that this legislation was both considered and passed. I believe that disclosure of campaign activities is the most fundamental component of campaign finance reform. On the one hand, proponents of measures like the McCain-Feingold bill point to greater disclosure as part and parcel of additional reforms. On the other hand, opponents have argued that, rather than more comprehensive reforms, what we really need is simply more disclosure on what we already have. So disclosure should be common ground where we can all come together, a point proved by the overwhelming support for disclosure of 527 organizations in the House on a vote of 385-39. As we know, these organizations have incorporated under the 527 section of the tax code to get tax exempt status to influence federal elections, but then they argue to the Federal Elections Commission that for their purposes these organizations aren't influencing federal elections, simply because they don't expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Right now, they don't have to disclose any of their activity--who they are, where they get their funding, and where they spend their money. Under this legislation, they will have to disclose on all their activities, and because political activities are all they do, that is as it should be. It has also been expressed that if we are to target 527's, we should also have increased disclosure for other organizations that engage in political activities. And I couldn't agree more. Because the American people ought to know who these groups are, their major sources of funding, and where they are spending their money if they are working to influence a federal election. It's that simple. Prior to this vote on 527's, we were working on legislation that would do just that--a bipartisan, bicameral measure that would satisfy the concerns that have also been raised about the scope of disclosure-- that it not be so broad as to cover all manner of activities that have nothing to do with elections. So we crafted a bill that was neither overly broad or vague. We narrowly and clearly defined political activities as those that mention a candidate for office, targeted specifically to the candidate's electorate, within a time frame near an election. And we only targeted large-scale communications so grassroots organizations will not be affected. Our framework for this expanded disclosure drew from an amendment that Senator Jeffords and I, along with Senators McCain, Feingold, Lieberman, and others, developed and introduced in early 1998. Based on a proposal developed and advanced by constitutional scholars, our measure was designed to withstand constitutional scrutiny, address some of the most egregious campaign abuses, and focus on areas where we know the Supreme Court has already allowed us to go--like disclosure. We've already been to the Senate floor twice with this language, and I'm proud to say that the constitutional arguments made against our provision quite simply didn't hold water. And a majority of the Senate went on record in support of our provision. In short, the three major provisions of the bill we were working on could be summed up as follows--disclosure, disclosure, and, finally, disclosure. That's what we're talking about here--sunlight, not censorship. Not speech rationing, but information. I cannot emphasize enough that our effort would not have prevented anyone from making any kind of communication at any time saying anything they want. All we said is, if you're attempting to influence a federal election, we ought to know who you are, your major sources of funding, and where you're spending your money. As the Brennan Center for Justice stated to me in a letter I had included in the Record in our first debate on Snowe-Jeffords, and I quote, ``As the Supreme Court has observed, disclosure rules do not restrict speech significantly. For that reason, the Supreme Court has made clear that rules requiring disclosure are subject to less exacting constitutional strictures than direct prohibitions on spending.'' So if the Congress is truly serious about increased disclosure, there is no reason why they should be able to support our approach. The fact is, we all have to disclose as candidates, and we should. Is it unreasonable when we know groups running ads or sending out mass mailings to the public are influencing federal elections to ask them to disclose as well? We know, for instance, that in the 1995-1996 election cycle, the Annenberg Public Policy Center estimates that between $135 to $150 million was spent by outside groups not associated with candidates on television ads. In the last cycle, that number jumped to between $275 to $350 million--more than double. But what we don't know is how much is being spent on efforts like mass mailings or phone banks, or who is funding them, and this legislation is designed to tell us. As for those so-called issue ads, if any doubt remains about the real intent of many of the broadcast ads we see, the Brennan Center recently released a report on television advertising in the 1998 congressional elections. What did they find? When all the ads were evaluated in terms of how many within two months of the general election were actually political ads and how many were simply discussing issues or legislation, 82 percent were seen as campaign ads. Eighty-two percent. There's no question what these ads are attempting to do--yet, under current law, they fly right under the radar screen. So, in short, our bipartisan approach got at the largest abuses while answering the critics who say that what's good for the 527 organizations are good for other groups and unions and corporations as well. Unfortunately, we did not reach agreement with the House on such an approach this year--but our work generated momentum for consideration and passage of this 527 bill. And we must look at this as a significant first step. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to build on this legislation with the broader approach of Snowe-Jeffords. The passage of this bill should also make it that much more difficult for those who supported it to now go back and say we shouldn't have greater disclosure for other groups engaging in political activities when Snowe-Jeffords is introduced next year. In other words, what we have done with this legislation is to throw a boulder in what has until this point been the still and brackish pond of the campaign finance status quo, and the ripple effect will continue expanding ever outward. Again, I want to thank everyone involved in this great victory and I hope we will move forward to expand our efforts on campaign finance reform in the next Congress. internal revenue service

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1651, the Fishermen's Protective Act Amendments of 1999. This bill makes a number of conservation and management improvements to several important fisheries laws. First, it amends the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to extend current law from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2003 so that reimbursement may be provided to owners of U.S. fishing vessels illegally detained or seized by foreign countries. In 1998, there were not any claims filed under this law, but in 1996 and 1997, U.S. vessel owners were reimbursed over $290,000 based on 261 claims for illegal transit fees charged by Canada. Because this provision of the law has expired, the bill will ensure that U.S. vessels who are illegally seized or fined are able to seek reimbursement. Second, the bill establishes a panel to advise the Secretaries of State and Interior on Yukon River Salmon management issues in Alaska. In 1985, the United States and Canada signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This treaty established a framework with which to bilaterally manage their shared salmon stocks. Ten years later, the countries signed an interim agreement regarding management of the stock of salmon in the Yukon River. The United States implemented the agreement on Yukon River salmon through the Fisheries Act of 1995, creating a Yukon River salmon panel and advisory committee. When the interim agreement expired in 1998, it was unclear whether the advisory panel was still authorized to recommend salmon restoration measures. This bill codifies the Yukon River Salmon Panel, established under the 1995 interim agreement, to advise the Secretary of State on Yukon River Salmon management, advise the Secretary of Interior on enhancement and restoration of the salmon stocks, and perform other activities that relate to the conservation and management of Yukon River salmon stocks. H.R. 1651, as amended, also authorizes $4 million a year for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Up to $3 million of these funds can be used by the Departments of Commerce and Interior for survey, restoration, and enhancement projects related to Yukon River salmon. In addition, the reported bill authorizes $600,000 for cooperative salmon research and management projects in the United States portion of the Yukon River drainage area that have been recommended by the Panel. Third, the bill, as amended by the Commerce Committee, authorizes $60 million for each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the Secretary of Commerce to acquire two fishery research vessels. These vessels are one of the most important fishery management tools available to federal scientists. Because they conduct the vast majority of fishery stock assessments, their reliability is critical to fishery management. Species abundance, recruitment, age class composition, and responses to ecological change and fishing pressure can all be studied with these research platforms. The information obtained using them is critical for the improvement of the regulations governing fisheries management. In New England, there is only one NOAA research vessel--the Albatross IV. This vessel is 38 years old, at the end of its useful life, and practically obsolete. Despite this, the vessel continues to collect the survey data that is used for management decisions regarding valuable Northeast fisheries stocks, including cod, haddock and herring. A replacement vessel is crucial to maintaining the existing ability to collect the long term fisheries, oceanographic, and biological data necessary to improve fishery management decisions. According to the Commerce Department, the deterioration of the Albatross IV has created an urgent need for a replacement vessel in the Northeast. Finally, the bill also addresses the use of spotter aircraft in the New England-based Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) fishery. Mr. President, in 1998, the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel, established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, unanimously requested and advised the Secretary of Commerce to prohibit the use of spotter aircraft in the General and Harpoon categories of the ABT fishery. The use of these planes can accelerate the catch rates and closures in the General and Harpoon categories. In turn, the accelerated catch rates can have an adverse impact on the scientific and conservation objectives of the highly migratory species fishery management plan and the communities that depend on the fishery. Moreover, the use of such aircraft has resulted in an unsafe and often hostile environment in the ABT fishery. Over two years ago, NMFS issued a proposed rule to adopt the Advisory Panel recommendation. Unfortunately, NMFS has delayed the rule time and again, and ultimately failed to finalize it. Consequently, it has become necessary to take legislative action on the issue. This bill adopts the Commerce Secretary's Advisory Panel recommendation and prohibits the use of spotter aircraft in the General and Harpoon categories of the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support, especially with regard to the provisions related to the NOAA fishery research vessels and the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. Both of these provisions are quite important in New England. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, 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 H.R. 1651, as amended.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 2327, the Oceans Act of 2000. I am pleased to support this bill, which will have a major influence on the direction of U.S. ocean policy, management, and research for many years to come. In 1966, Congress established the Stratton Commission through the enactment of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act. The Stratton Commission provided a comprehensive evaluation of the role of the ocean to the United States and provided a series of recommendations regarding ocean and coastal policy for the future. After over 30 months of meetings, hearings, and correspondence, the Commission produced the 1969 report, ``Our Nation and the Sea''. The document made a significant impact on coastal and ocean policy, leading to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970 and the National Coastal Zone Management Program in 1972. Now, over thirty years after publication of the original Stratton Commission report, it is time to reexamine current U.S. programs and legislation that affect the oceans, Great Lakes, and coastal zones. Our coastal regions and ocean resources are under increasing pressures. In the United States, more than 53 percent of the population is living in coastal regions that comprise only 17 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area. Additionally, the coastal population is increasing by 3,600 people per day, with a projected coastal increase of 27 million people by the year 2015. The increasing pressures on the coast are being mirrored in the oceans. Valuable commercial activities such as shipping and maritime transportation, oil and gas production, and fishing impact the oceans and Great Lakes. Additionally, environmental stresses, such as pollution and increased water temperatures potentially due to global climate change, are exacerbating existing problems. The Oceans Act of 2000 will create a Commission on Ocean Policy to examine a variety of ocean and Great Lakes issues. Protection of the marine environment, prevention of marine pollution, enhancement of maritime commerce and transportation, response to natural hazards, and preservation of the United States' role as a leader in ocean and coastal activities will all be reviewed. The Commission will be composed of 16 members that represent state and local governments, ocean-related industries, academic and technical institutions, and relevant public interest organizations. The members will be nominated by Congress and appointed by the President. The Commission will be responsible for submitting a report to Congress and the President, within 18 months, containing their recommendations. These recommendations will focus on the development of a comprehensive, cost-effective policy to address pressing ocean and coastal issues. It will provide important guidance to policy makers on how to shape the future direction of ocean policy for the United States. Mr. President, I would like to recognize Senator Hollings, the author of the bill, for his work creating the original Stratton Commission and for his leadership on this issue. In addition, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, both original cosponsors of the legislation, were involved with the work of the Stratton Commission, and I look forward to working with them and the other members of the Commerce Committee on the Oceans Act of 2000. Finally, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Committee and Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee for their support of this measure.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Kennedy's amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, is a new version of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, of which I am a cosponsor. Mr. President, there is nothing so ugly as hate. It saddens me that at the brink of a new century, when our country is in a time of almost unprecedented prosperity--when more people than ever before are educated, when major medical breakthroughs seem to occur almost on a daily basis--that we are still faced with racism and prejudice in our society. Current law permits Federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by bias based on religion, national origin, or color, and the assailant intended to prevent the victim from exercising a ``federally protected right'' such as voting, jury duty, attending school, or conducting interstate commerce. These tandem requirements substantially limit the potential for federal prosecution of hate crimes. Most crimes against victims based on their gender, disability, or sexual orientation are now only covered under State law, unless such crimes are committed within a Federal jurisdiction such as an assault on a Federal official, on an Indian reservation, or in a national park. While more than 40 States have hate crimes statutes in effect, only 22 States have hate crimes legislation that addresses gender, and only 21 States have hate crimes legislation that address sexual orientation or disability. The amendment before us today would expand Federal jurisdiction and increase the Federal role in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Under this legislation, hate crimes that cause death or bodily injury because of prejudice can be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal Government, regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right. The bill defines a hate crime as a violent act causing death or bodily injury ``because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.'' I believe that one of our country's greatest strengths is Congress's ability to balance strong State's rights against a Federal Government that unites these separate States. I also believe that the Federal Government has a duty to provide leadership on issues of great moral imperative, especially in the area of civil rights. Hate crimes go beyond the standard criminal motivation. We are all familiar with the horrible stories of James Byrd, Jr., who was chained to a truck and dragged to his death because of his race, of Matthew Shepard, who was beaten and tied to a wooden fence and died in freezing temperatures because of his sexual orientation, and of the attack last August at a Jewish community center because of religion. There is no doubt that crime is morally and legally wrong and there is no one in this chamber who could possible argue otherwise. And I understand the argument that opponents of the amendment have: How can the law punish a crime for more than what it actually and literally is? But hate crimes are not just about the crime itself, they are about the motivation. And there is something especially pernicious about a crime that occurs because of who somebody is. There is something all the more horrific when a crime happens because of the victim's race, or color, or religion. Hate crimes are meant to send a message to a group: ``you had better be careful because you are not accepted here.'' The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that in 1998--the latest data available--almost 8,000 crimes were motivated by hate or prejudice. Over half of these crimes were motivated by racial bias; nearly 20 percent of these crimes were because of religious bias; and 16 percent of these crimes were a result of sexual-orientation bias. Twenty-five of these crimes happened simply because the victim was disabled, and 754 because of the ethnicity or national origin of the victim. The amendment before us today is not about creating a special class of crime. It is not about policing our ideas or beliefs; it is about the criminal action that some people take on the basis of these beliefs. We cannot make it a crime to hate someone. But we can make it a crime to attack because a person specifically hates who the victim is or what the victim represents. One of my favorite sayings is ``As Maine goes . . . so goes the Nation.'' This adage proves true again with the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and with Senator Kennedy's amendment. I am proud that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and today's amendment, are largely based on Maine's 1992 Civil Rights Law, which was enacted while my husband, John R. McKernan, was Governor of the State. And I am proud that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is supported by our current Attorney General, Andrew Ketterer. Mr. President, our laws are a direct reflection of our priorities as a nation. And I, along with the vast majority of Americans I would venture to say, fundamentally believe that crimes of hate and prejudice should not be tolerated in our society. That is why I support prosecuting hate crimes to the fullest possible extent. The amendment before us today will expand the ability of the Federal Government to prosecute these immoral and pernicious crimes. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for, once again, assuming the leadership on this most important issue. I rise today as a cosponsor of the Murray amendment to repeal the ban on privately-funded abortions at overseas military hospitals. Last year, when I spoke on this amendment, I said that ``standing here I have the feeling of `Deja vu all over again.' '' I have that same sentiment today--and this year I can add that ``the more things change, the more they remain the same.'' For in the last year we have deployed more women overseas--6,000 more women than there were just a year ago. And yet here we are, once again, having to argue a case that basically boils down to providing women who are serving their country overseas with the full range of constitutional rights, options, and choices that would be afforded them as American citizens on American soil. In 1973, 27 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time women's right to choose. This landmark decision was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. But this same right is not afforded to female members of our armed services or to female dependents who happen to be stationed overseas. Current law prohibits abortions to be performed in domestic or international military treatment facilities except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered. The Department of Defense will only pay for the abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is endangered--in cases of rape or incest, the woman must pay for her own abortion. In no other instance is a woman permitted to have an abortion in a military facility. The Murray-Snowe amendment would overturn the ban on privately funded abortions in overseas military treatment facilities and ensure that women and military dependents stationed overseas would have access to safe health care. Overturning this ban on privately-funded abortions will not result in federal funds being used to perform abortion at military hospitals. The fact is that Federal law already states that Federal funding cannot be used to perform abortions. Federal law has banned the use of Federal funds for this purpose since 1979. But to say that our service women and the wives and daughters of our servicemen cannot use their own money to obtain an abortion at a military hospital overseas defies logic. Every year opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment argue that changing current law means that military personnel and military facilities will be charged with performing abortions--and that this, in turn, means that American taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortion. This seemingly logical segue is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect. Every hospital that performs a surgery--every physician that performs a procedure upon a patient--must figure out the cost of that procedure. This includes not only the time involved, but the materials, the overhead, the liability insurance. This is the fundamental and basic principle of covering one's costs. I have faith that the Department of Defense will not do otherwise. This is the idea behind a privately-funded abortion--a woman's private funds, her own money pays for the procedure. But she has the opportunity to have this medical procedure--a medical procedure that is constitutionally guaranteed--in an American facility, performed by an American physician, and tended to by American nurses. During last year's debate, opponents of repealing the current ban claimed that American taxpayers would be subsidizing the purchase of equipment for abortions, and would be training doctors to perform privately-funded abortions. This false argument effectively overlooks the fact that the Department of Defense has already invested in the equipment and training necessary because current law already provides access in cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest. But the economic cost of this ban is not the only cost at issue here. What about the impact on a woman's health? A woman who is stationed overseas can be forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until she can travel to the United States or another overseas location in order to obtain the abortion. Every week that a woman delays an abortion increases the risk of the procedure. The current law banning privately-funded abortions puts the health of these women at risk. They will be forced to seek out unsafe medical care in countries where the blood supply is not safe, where their procedures are antiquated, where their equipment may not be sterile. I do not believe it is right, on top of all the other sacrifices our military personnel are asked to make, to add unsafe medical care to the list. I believe that a decision as fundamentally personal as whether or not to continue one's pregnancy only needs to be discussed between a woman, her family, and her physician. But yet, as current law stands, a woman who is facing the tragic decision of whether or not to have an abortion faces involving not just her family and her physician, but her--or her husband's--commanding officer, duty officer, miscellaneous transportation personnel, and any number of other persons who are totally and completely unrelated to her or her decision. Now she faces both the stress and grief of her decision--but she faces the judgment and willingness of many others who are totally and wholly unconnected to her personal and private situation. Imagine having made the difficult decision to have an abortion and then being told that you have to return to the United States or go to a hospital that may or may not be clean and sanitary. That is the effect of current policy--if you have the money, if you leave your family, if you leave your support system, and come back here. Otherwise, your full range of choices consists of paying from your own money and taking your chances at some questionable hospital that may or may not be okay. This of course, is only if the country you are stationed in has legal abortion. Otherwise you have no option. You have no access to your constitutionally protected right of abortion. What is the freedom to choose? It is the freedom to make a decision without unnecessary government interference. Denying a woman the best available resources for her health care simply is not right. Current law does not provide a woman and her family the ability to make a choice. It gives the woman and her family no freedom of choice. It makes the choice for her. In the year 2000, in the United States of America it is a fact that a woman's right to an abortion is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has spoken on that issue, and you can look it up. Denying women the right to a safe abortion because you disagree with the Supreme Court is wrong, but that is what current law does. Military personnel stationed overseas still vote, still pay taxes, and are protected and punished under U.S. law. They protect the rights and ideals that this country stands for. Whether we agree with abortion or not, we all understand that safe and legal access to abortion is the law of the land. But the current ban on privately-funded abortions takes away the fundamental right of personal choice from American women stationed overseas. And I don't believe these women should be treated as second class citizens. It never occurred to me that women's constitutional rights were territorial. It never occurred to me that when American women in our armed forces get their visas and passports stamped when they go abroad--that they are required to leave their fundamental, constitutional rights at the proverbial door. It never occurred to me that in order to find out what freedoms you have as an American, you had to check the time-zone you were in. The United States willingly sends our service men and women into harms way--yet Congress takes it upon itself to deny 14 percent of our Armed Forces personnel--33,000 of whom are stationed overseas--the basic right to safe medical care. And we deny the basic right to safe medical care to more than 200,000 military dependents who are stationed overseas as well. How can we do this to our service men and women and their families? It seems to me that they already sacrifice a great deal to serve their country without asking them to take unnecessary risks with their health as well. We should not ask our military personnel to leave their basic rights at the shoreline when we send them overseas. I believe we owe our men and women in uniform and their families the option to receive the medical care they need in a safe environment. They do not deserve anything less. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Murray-Snowe amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making that point. As I discussed during the debate last week on the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization bill, the Armed Services Committee is working hard to come to terms with the force levels necessary to accomplish the many missions our Navy and Marine Corps are called on to accomplish. The increase to war fighting capability that LPD-17 brings is critical to our naval force's future success. The LPD-17's ability to accommodate new equipment, such as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), the Landing Craft Air Cushioned Vehicle (LCAC) and the vertical lift MV-22, and the remarkable communications, integrated computer technology and quality of life improvements are the qualities of the ship that the Marine Corps and Navy need to support the National Strategy and the Marine Corps' doctrine of Operational Maneuver From The Sea.

Ms. SNOWE. As always I am impressed by the chairman's knowledge and his grasp of the issues. We have worked closely over the past few weeks to determine how the Navy and industry stand in regard to their progress with this new ship class, and I appreciate that we are in agreement as to the value and need for this critical ship. I look forward to our continued work together in support of this program.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I seek recognition with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator from Alaska to discuss a very important matter to our national security. Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2001 national Defense authorization bill contain provisions that supported the President's budget request and authorized $1.51 billion for Navy procurement of two LPD-17 amphibious ships in FY2001. The LPD-17 program is a critical ship for the modernization of the Navy's amphibious force. It will carry more than 700 Marines and the equipment and means for them to get ashore and perform their mission-- whether that mission is combat related, peacekeeping or in response to crisis throughout the world. It is a Commandant of the Marine Corps, before the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``there are no underutilized amphibious ships,'' and the testimony by Lieutenant General Rhodes before the Seapower Subcommittee where he stated that ``the operational flexibility and forward presence our Amphibious Ready Groups represent will be significantly enhanced with the FY03 delivery of the first of 12 LPD-17 amphibious ships.'' He further stated, ``these ships will overcome amphibious lift shortfalls.''

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Alaska's support for the LPD-17 program, and would like to take a few minutes to discuss with the distinguished chairman the critical need for these ships.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to two defense legislative fellows in my office, Jennifer Ogilvie and Sam Horton, for the duration of our consideration of S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this article describes the current state of the U.S. Armed Forces and how they are overstretched. This means that the military is attempting to respond to too many demands with too few forces. And I quote ``Nowhere is the problem worse than for the Navy.'' In the Seapower subcommittee's work this year in review of the fiscal year 2001 budget request we continued the Congress' review of the adequacy of Navy and Marine Corps force structure to carry out the National Security Strategy, which we all know has been signed by the President of the United States. This included hearings, visits to fleet units, and discussions with the most junior personnel in the fleet to the highest flag officers and civilian leaders in the Navy and Marine Corps. The subcommittee constructed a firm foundation for review of the fiscal year 2001 budget request by requesting operational commanders to testify on their ability to carry out the National Security Strategy. The operational commanders confirmed what my colleagues and I had been hearing directly from fleet units which included discussions with individual sailors and marines representing a cross section of all ranks. The operational commanders provided convincing evidence that their commands do not have a sufficient number of ships and airplanes to carry out the National Security Strategy to shape the international environment and respond to crisis within the required time frame. They further testified that the Navy has reduced the force structure to the extent that the brunt of the burden of this inadequate force structure is being borne, in their words, by the men and women in their commands. Simply put, in the words of the Sixth Fleet commander, Nine years ago, we never anticipated the environment in which we find ourselves operating. The sense that it was going to be a much easier load, that we might actually be able to take our pack off every now and again prevailed. And it for the most part underpinned the decline in defense spending in my estimation. We were wrong. And the facts have borne that out with ever increasing consistency in those nine years that have occurred. And I quote the Second Fleet commander. . . . back in the euphoric days at the end of the Cold War as we were drawing down, we actually figured that we would have a window of opportunity here where we could afford to, in fact, decrease structure, turn some of that savings into a long-term recapitalization, maybe forego an upgrade or modernization here and there. And that just has not been the case. In this article, Mr. Goure quotes Vice Admiral Charles Moore, commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, he states ``I am uncertain how much longer they can continue to juggle forces to meet the varied regional requirements.'' And he further quotes Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, commander of the Third Fleet, ``that force structure throughout the Navy is such that an increased commitment anywhere necessitates reduction of operations somewhere else, or a quality of life impact due to increased operating tempo.'' Again, those are the words of our commanders on the front lines charged with carrying out the day-to-day operations of our naval forces and to the challenges and requirements around the world. It is noteworthy that these commanders state that the prediction of how much our naval forces could be reduced does not represent the reality of what is going on in the world. I have two charts which I think explain graphically the numbers that are consistent with the commander's explanations and characterizations of the demands that have been placed on them as a result of a reduced force structure, while at the same time increasing the number of responses to contingency operations. Both charts use the same timeframe across the board. The charts track data in 4-year increments starting in 1980 and continuing through 1990. Each chart shows the 8 years before the cold war, 1980 through 1987, then the period between the end of the cold war and the beginning of the Quadrennial Defense Review in assessing exactly how many ships will be required to meet the security demands around the world. Here we have the ship force structure from 1980 to 1999. I bring to my colleagues' attention the last 8 years charted in the graphs, the time period between 1992 to 1995, which is before the Quadrennial Defense Review; and then in 1996 to 1999, the post Quadrennial Defense Review in terms of the number of ships we have. We have the ship force structure on the top chart, and on the bottom chart we have the number of contingency operations during these same time periods. These last two data points in these graphs are significant because they show the large force structure reductions of over 200 ships while at the same time the contingencies more than triple, from 31 to 103. The QDR, we know, developed the exact force structure that was necessary for both the Navy and the Marine Corps in this instance to respond to the number of requirements around the world and what they anticipated would be the number of operations around the world. The QDR has anticipated there would be a rise in contingency operations but not to the extent to which they have occurred. The first chart shows the ship force structure, the dramatic decline in the number of ships, both in decommissioning and in the reduction, and the number of new constructions. At its peak during the cold war, we were up to 500, going towards a 600-ship Navy. We can see we had 500 ships in 1980 to 1983; up to 1988, we had 550 ships. We were building up to a 600-ship Navy. We declined to 417 ships at the end of the cold war and, prior to the development of the Quadrennial Defense Review, to a total of 316 ships. In those 8 short years where we declined from 500 ships to 316 ships, we had a dramatic increase in the number of contingency operations. The second chart shows during the end of the cold war we had 31 contingency operations, when we had 550 ships. During 1992 and 1995, prior to the Quadrennial Defense Review in terms of assessing how many ships we would need, we had 68 contingency operations and 417 ships. In the post QDR, in 1996 to 1999, we had 103 contingency operations, tripling the number we had during the cold war. Yet we only had 316 ships during this period. This is a dramatic increase in the number of contingency operations. While we had the highest number of ships, we had the lowest number of contingency operations. While we now have the lowest number of ships, we have the highest number of contingency operations. That is placing tremendous pressure on our Armed Forces and our personnel because of the lack of ships to meet those responses. So not only is it a problem in trying to meet the demands around the world, but it also is problematic for our men and women in uniform in terms of the quality of life, in terms of morale, in terms of recruitment and retention. That is the end result of what is happening. It may be difficult to quantify. I think these charts illustrate very clearly the pressures that are being placed on our naval forces and the Marine Corps today. This is a disturbing and alarming trend. I think it does support the commander's testimony that we are being stretched too thin in responding to the increasing number of contingencies while reducing the number of ships. The assertion that a smaller number of more capable ships resulting in a stronger Navy is just not being borne out. Some would say it is quality that matters. That may well be true. In fact, we are moving to enhance the quality of the ships in the future. As the commanders have told us time and again and repeatedly in testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee, numbers do count. Quantity, as one commander said, is a quality all its own. One ship, even though it is more capable than three ships it replaces, cannot cover two geographic areas at once. The fact is, we found that out during the course of the Kosovo campaign and the onset of the Kosovo campaign. In fact, General Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander, had requested an aircraft carrier presence in the Adriatic. It took 2 weeks before we were able to have an aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, 2 weeks into the Kosovo conflict. We heard in testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee from Vice Admiral Murphy, who is commander of the 6th Fleet, who told us that: . . . if we had a Navy air wing-- And I am using his words-- in the fight from day one, we could only speculate as to the difference the naval air would have made in the first 2 weeks but I believe it would have been substantial. In his words, he said it would have been substantial. It could have made a difference, having that airpower there from day one of the Kosovo conflict. But that did not happen. It took 2 weeks. In the meantime, we left a gap in the Pacific command. We left the Pacific command without an aircraft carrier because we had to cover the Persian Gulf and, of course, meet the demands in Kosovo. That is what happens when we are stretched too thin and we do not have the number of ships to meet our responsibilities around the world. As I said in the course of my discussion this morning, the fact is, the demands being placed on our naval forces and the Marine Corps are becoming greater and greater. Yet the number of ships to meet those demands is becoming fewer. So the question becomes, How many ships? That is a good question, one we are striving to answer. Have we gone too far in bringing down the number of ships to 300? The operational commanders will tell us yes. Without a doubt, due to the high operational tempo that is reflected in this chart, as we have seen, tripling the number of contingency operations compared to where we were during the cold war, I would have to agree. We have had 103 contingency operations during the period of 1996 to 1999, with 316 ships. Yet during the cold war period, during a 9-year period, we only had 31. So obviously the demands are greater. I think we have to make some decisions about where we need to go in the future. As the commander of the 6th Fleet testified, again during the course of his testimony, he said: Numbers count. If there is an insufficiency of numbers, by the time you figure it out, it is usually too late. So these shortcomings become a concern, as I say, leaving gaps, for example, in the Pacific command, not being able to respond to the Supreme Allied Commander by having an aircraft carrier for the duration of the entire conflict because we don't have enough ships; or because of the impact on the men and women because of the extended deployments, because of the quality of life, because of the recruitment and retention problems and the soaring cost of contingency operations--it is having an impact across the board. So, yes, there are higher risks in all respects. We have to address those risks. We are trying. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee and member of the overall committee, we have been asking for a report from the Pentagon as to what is their long-term shipbuilding plan that will ascertain exactly how many ships will be required to respond to these demands. Senator Robb of Virginia had included an amendment to the Defense authorization last year that asked for this long-term shipbuilding plan. The statutory requirement included a deadline of February of this year for the Pentagon to submit this report to the committee and to the Congress. They have failed to meet this prescribed statutory requirement of this analysis so the committee could make some decisions for the long term because it is not easy to shift these decisions when it comes to shipbuilding. It takes 5 to 6 years, on average, to construct a ship. If we are going to reverse some of the trends that are already inherent in the budgets that have been submitted by the Pentagon, and if we are going to respond to those shifts, it is going to take a required lead time to make those changes. Yet the Defense Department has not submitted this analysis that was required under the law by February of this year. We have asked time and again; we have submitted letters to the Pentagon. I plan to hold a hearing to find out exactly why this report has not been submitted to the committee so we, in turn, can make the decisions, evaluate the analysis, and make some changes for the future. If we are being told by the top civilian and military leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps that they are being stretched too thin, even with today's force structure of about 316 ships, then we are required to make some decisions about the future. They have confirmed time and again the predicted operating tempo of the Quadrennial Defense Review upon which this force structure of 316 ships is being based is different, quite different from what is occurring around the world. In fact, in regard to the QDR, the Navy's Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments testified: . . . prognostications for the future were different than the reality has turned out in the last few years . . . we need to build higher number of ships than we are building today. Other witnesses have also confirmed the budget request that was submitted by the administration did not include the construction of 8.7 new ships required to recapitalize the fleet at a rate that would maintain 308 ships, let alone increasing the number above the 316 ships in the fleet today. We had testimony from a Congressional Research Service witness that a $10 billion to $12 billion investment on an annual basis, depending on the actual ship mix, to build an average of 8.7 ships per year is required just to maintain a 308-ship Navy. However, as I said, the budget request submitted by the Pentagon and by the administration for future years was only 7.5 ships per year on average. So that exacerbates the force structure problem rather than addressing it with the required resources. The fact is, the historical average for shipbuilding over the last 5 to 6 years has been 7.5 ships. That puts us on a course for 263 ships in the Navy. So it is obviously far below the 300-ship Navy that has been determined to be necessary by the Quadrennial Defense Review, certainly less than the 316-ship Navy we have today, and certainly that is fewer ships than we need to be able to respond when it comes to the number of challenges around the world and the number of contingency operations that we have been engaged in and are responding to, just in a 4-year period between 1996 and 1999, which has been 103 contingency operations. The subcommittee has tried to respond to these challenges. We have tried to respond in a number of ways, at least to begin to reverse course until we get this analysis from the Pentagon. Again, as I said, we will demand that analysis from the Pentagon so we can make a decision whether it is going to be 300 ships or 263 ships--which we are on a course towards, given the request and given the previous budgets by the administration--or if we are going to change that course, increasing the number from 316 or 300 or whatever the number may be. But we need to have a realistic assessment of where we should go in the future. We have tried in this budget before us today in the reauthorization to respond to some of the issues. We have decided to do it in a number of ways. First, we included a legislative provision that will provide for advanced procurement but at the same time save $1.1 billion in taxpayers' dollars, if the Navy takes advantage of the opportunities that are provided in this reauthorization. To attain $500 million of the $1.1 billion in savings, the bill authorizes the Navy to buy the next six DDG-51 ships under a multiyear agreement at an economic rate of three ships per year and provides $143 million in advanced procurement to achieve economies of scale. An additional $600 million in savings will result from the Navy contracting for the LHD-8 with prior year funding, as well as $460 million in this bill, and future full funding. These smart acquisition strategies are actions that leverage the ship construction funding. It also provides a number of other cost-saving provisions. We authorize a block buy for economic order quantities for up to five Virginia class submarines and smart product modeling for our Navy's aircraft carriers. Both of these initiatives will result in shipbuilding savings. Over the long haul, to sustain the minimum ship requirements, the Navy must find economies in all areas, including reducing operational costs for its entire fleet. The key to reducing these operating costs of ships lies in research and development for the design of future ships that can operate more efficiently and with less manning. Our bill does approve ship design research and development which will directly result in reduced overall life-cycle costs of the Navy's next generation of ships. The research and development investment includes $550 million for the DD-21 program, $38 million for the CVN-77, $236 million for the CVN(X) and $207 million for the Virginia class submarine technologies. In addition to the ship force structure issues, subcommittee witnesses testified that capabilities must remain ahead of the threats designed to disrupt or deny maritime operations on the high seas and in the littorals. We also had testimony that indicated air and sea strategic lift and support are absolutely important to support all warfighting commanders in chief and all services, as well as supporting other Government agencies. We tried to address the requirements to modernize the equipment as soon as possible while continuing the research and development which has the potential to provide our forces with the future systems they require. We also supported the Marine Corps requirements of two LPD-17 class amphibious ships, which is state-of-the-art advance transport ships, as well as 12 MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, one landing craft air cushion life extension, and an additional $27 million for the advanced amphibious assault vehicle research and development. We tried to address a number of the requirements for both the Navy and the Marine Corps to address what we consider to be the deficiencies that were submitted in the budget request by the administration for the Navy and the Marine Corps. It is also an attempt to fill the gap that has been placed on both of those services with respect to demands that not only have been required of them in contingency operations, but also in terms of the reduced force structure that has been demonstrated by these charts and by the realities in the world today. I hope in the future we will be able to have the kind of analysis upon which we can develop what will be an adequate force structure, what will be an adequate number of ships, and other requirements for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Whether it is a 300-ship Navy, 308-ship Navy, a 316-ship Navy or beyond, or a 263-ship Navy, which has been the historical trend, as I said, over the last 5 to 6 years and which this authorization is attempting to reverse, it is going to take more than that. Obviously, we need to have the numbers and the analysis upon which to base those numbers from the Defense Department so that Congress has the ability to analyze those numbers in terms of what is sufficient to meet the security challenges around the world. As I said earlier, the Quadrennial Defense Review developed a number. They said a 300-ship Navy would be adequate to respond to the security challenges. They anticipated there would be an increase in contingency operations, but the problem is they did not anticipate the extent to which those operations would place demands on our naval forces and our Marine Corps.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the President. I want to begin my remarks by commending our Chairman, Senator John Warner, who has provided extraordinary leadership in crafting this measure which supports our men and women in uniform with funding for the pay, health care, and hardware that they need and deserve. I can think of no one with greater credibility on these issues or a wider breadth of knowledge, and I thank him for his outstanding efforts. I also want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, who also has made invaluable contributions to the development of this reauthorization. This critical legislation which we are considering here today, with our distinguished chairman, and the bipartisan support of the ranking member, Senator Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan, represents the committee's response to legitimate concerns and recognizes the sacrifices of those who are at the heart of the legislation--the men and women who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I know we must never forget that the men and women in uniform are the ones who make our Nation's defense force the finest and strongest in the world, and I salute each of them for their unwavering service. We are honor bound to ensure that they are provided the very best equipment, afforded the highest respect, and compensated at a level commensurate with their remarkable service to this Nation. And I believe this bill reflects those principles. Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the overall military force structure by 36 percent and reduced the defense budget by 40 percent--a trend that this bill reverses. And let me say that comes not a moment too soon. Because while the size of our armed services has decreased, the number of contingencies that our service members are called on to respond to has increased in a fashion that can only be described as dramatic. In fact, the Navy/Marine Corps team alone responded to 58 contingency missions between 1980 and 1989, while between 1990 and 1999 they responded to 192--a remarkable threefold increase in operations. During the cold war, the U.N. Security Council rarely approved the creation of peace operations. In fact, the U.N. implemented only 13 such operations between 1948 and 1978, and none from 1979 to 1987. By contrast, since 1988--just twelve years ago--38 peacekeeping operations have been established--nearly three times as many than the previous 40 years. As a result of the challenges presented by having to do more with less, the Armed Services Committee has heard from our leaders in uniform on how our current military forces are being stretched too thin, and that estimates predicted in the fiscal year 1997 QDR underestimated how much the United States would be using our military. I fully support this bill which authorizes $309.8 billion in budget authority, an amount which is consistent with the concurrent budget resolution. For the second year in a row--we recognize the shortfall and reverse a 14-year decline by authorizing a real increase in defense spending. This funding is $4.5 billion above the President's fiscal year 2001 request, and provides a necessary increase in defense spending that is vital if we are to meet the national security challenges of the 21st century. This bill not only provides funds for better tools and equipment for our service men and women to do their jobs but it also enhances quality of life for themselves and their families. It approves a 3.7-percent pay raise for our military personnel as well as authorizing extensive improvements in military health care for active duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I was particularly interested in an article that I read this morning in Defense News titled ``U.S. Navy: Stretched Too Thin?'' by Daniel Goure. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his leadership and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Seapower, Senator Kennedy. I also thank the professional staff: Gary Hall, Tom McKenzie, and John Barnes on the majority side, and Creighton Greene on the minority side. I also thank my personal staff: Tom Vecchiolla, Sam Horton, and Jennifer Ogilvie, defense fellows in my office as well. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment that seeks to authorize two additional BRAC rounds in fiscal years 2003 and 2005. I have been a steadfast opponent to future BRAC proposals. This Administration has proposed BRAC legislation for the last 3 years. Each year, this administration has asked us to address the same issue. Yet over the last three years, nothing has changed. First, the estimated savings achieved by closing bases are just that--estimated; and second, the inconsistent application of the BRAC process--which this Administration so readily demonstrated after the 1995 round, will result in lost training areas or access to airspace or the sea space by our military forces. This will result in degraded force readiness and will be to the overall detriment of our Armed Forces. Advocates of base closures allege that billions of dollars will be saved, despite the fact that there is no consensus on the numbers among different sources. These estimates vary because, as the Congressional Budget Office explains, BRAC savings are really ``avoided costs.'' Because these avoided costs are not actual expenditures and cannot be recorded and tracked by the DoD accounting systems, they cannot be validated which has lead to inaccurate and overinflated estimates. For example, as revealed by the General Accounting Office, land sales from the first base closure round in 1988 were estimated by Pentagon officials to produce $2.4 billion in revenue, however, as of 1995, the actual revenue generated was only $65.7 million. That is about 25 percent of the expected value. And what was the real up-front cost to generate these so called savings? No one really knows. This type of overly optimistic accounting establishes a very poor foundation for initiating a policy that will have a permanent impact on both the military and the civilian communities surrounding these bases. I also want to address the issue of the up-front costs involved in the base closure process. This appears to be noticeably absent from the debate. The facts reveal that there are billions of dollars in costs incurred to close a base. This includes over $1 billion in Federal financial assistance provided to each affected community--a cost paid by the Federal Government, not through BRAC budget accounts, and therefore is not counted in the estimates. And more significantly, there is $9.6 billion in environmental cleanup costs as a result of the first four BRAC rounds--a conservative figure according to a December 1998 GAO report-- a number that will continue to grow. The administration and proponents of additional BRAC rounds are quick to point out that reducing infrastructure has not kept pace with our post cold war military force reductions. They say that bases must be downsized proportionate to the reduction in total force strength. However, this thinking is based on the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the military force structure by 36 percent and have reduced the defense budget by 40 percent. But now I ask you how much are we employing that force? Let me point out that although the size of the armed services has decreased, the number of contingencies that our service members have been called upon to respond to has dramatically increased--the Navy/ Marine Corps team alone responded to 58 contingency missions between 1980 and 1989, and between 1990 and 1999 they responded to 192--a remarkable threefold increase! During the cold war, the U.N. Security Council rarely approved the creation of peace operations. The U.N. implemented only 13 such operations between 1948 and 1978, and none from 1979 to 1987. Since 1988, by contrast, 38 peace operations have been established--nearly three times as many than the previous 40 years. In hearing after hearing this year, the Armed Services Committee has heard from our leaders in uniform how our current military forces are being stretched too thin, and that estimates predicted in the fiscal year 1997 QDR underestimated how much the United Sates would be using its military. Clearly, the benefits of the peace dividend are not being realized. So, we are seeing first hand that the 1997 QDR force levels underestimated how much our military force was intended to be used, that our military force is being called upon now more than what military strategies estimated, and that our forces are being stretched to cover a wide range of operations. These force levels have to be revisited, and if the trend for current deployments remains true, I would expect that these force levels may have to be increased. So would we then go and buy back this property that we have given up in future BRAC rounds to build new bases--I think not. Before we legislate defense-wide policy that will reduce the size and number of training areas critical to our force readiness, the Department of Defense needs a comprehensive plan that identifies the operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support the services national security requirements. The peacekeeping and humanitarian missions clearly require a greater force structure than expected. It has become clear that we are committing more military forces--and more often--than we had planned or anticipated. There is no straight line corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure required to support them. We must realize that once property is given up and remediated, it is permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes. In the words of the Chief of Naval Operations, ``we cannot give it away or we will never get it back''. In the full committee hearings and the subcommittee hearings that the Armed Services Committee held this past year, the Chief of Naval Operations and fleet commanders testified that the QDR established force levels are not sufficient to support their operational requirements. A report released earlier this year by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that the submarine force levels needed to be raised from the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and I anticipate that the next QDR will support an increase in the ``300 ship'' Navy as well. Therefore, given the elasticity in the QDR numbers, it would be premature and costly to base permanent BRAC decisions on estimates that we know are not being realized. Finally, it would be hypocritical to say that opponents of additional BRAC rounds are politicizing the process. Politics weigh heavily on both sides of the debate. In December 1998, the General Accounting Office reported that of the 499 recommendations made by the four BRAC commissions, 48 were amended and removed from the closure list. And we are all well aware of the Administration's ``intervention'' in the last round that resulted in the ``privatization-in-place'' of the McClellan and Kelly Air Force Base depots instead of their closure. I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and submarines, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defend our Nation. We cannot degrade the readiness of our armed forces by chasing illusive savings. I reaffirm my opposition to legislation authorizing additional BRAC rounds and encourage my colleagues to join me to vote against it. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that recognizes the contributions and sacrifices to our nation's defense provided by the men and women of the United States Naval Submarine Service and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard at Kittery, Maine, and to specifically recognize that ``last full measure of devotion'' shown by the crew of the USS Thresher on April 10, 1963. As you are aware, this year the U.S. Navy is celebrating the 100th year of service to our country by the Naval Submarine Service. From the acquisition of its first submarine, the USS Holland, in April 1900 to the present day, the U.S. Naval Submarine Service has served America bravely, gallantly, and steadfastly. We are all aware of the debt we owe the Submarine Service for their role in World War II when, in the immediate dark days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the ``Silent Service'' took the war to the enemy. Although they lost 52 submarines and more than 3,500 submariners, they accounted for 55 percent of all enemy ships lost and significantly contributed to the final victory in the Pacific. Since that time the Submarine Service has continued to protect the nation through its deterrence patrols and many other missions. In just the past few years the ability of our submarines to provide a stealthy, land-attack capability in support of operations in the Persian Gulf and in Kosovo has proven once again that their adaptability and capability are vital to the security interests of this nation. A significant supporter of the Submarine Service for the past 100 years and this nation for the past 200 years has been the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. Beginning in 1800, the shipyard provided the U.S. Navy with ``ships of the line'' and during the War of 1812 it became a Navy command. But it is the shipyard's contributions to the Submarine Service that I want to talk about here today. In April 1917, the first submarine built in a government shipyard, the L-8, was launched at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and in the ensuing 52 years, the shipyard launched another 133 submarines, including a record 31 in 1944 alone. In November 1971, the last submarine built in a government yard, the USS Sand Lance, was launched at Portsmouth before they took on their new role to overhaul, repair, and refuel nuclear submarines. But during their 52 years of building submarines Portsmouth delivered many firsts to the Submarine Service: First U.S. submarine built with an all-welded steel hull--the Snapper; first U.S. submarine built of high tensile steel--the Balao; first snorkel installed in a U.S. submarine--the Irex; first truly submersible hull developed using dirigible form, a breakthrough in hydrodynamic design--the Albacore; and the first nuclear powered submarine built in a government shipyard--the Swordfish. But the shipyard and the Submarine Service could not have accomplished these important contributions to our nation's security without the unfailing valor and unselfish service of the submarine crews and shipyard workers that put them to sea. Perhaps there is no greater example of our American virtue of standing together for the common defense than the story of the USS Thresher, a nuclear submarine launched at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on July 9, 1960. When she was launched the Thresher represented a new class of submarine for the Navy. The Thresher-class was designed to be the world's first modern, quiet, deep-diving fast-attack submarine. Some of her innovative features included machinery rafts for sound silencing, a large bow-mounted sonar, torpedo tubes amidships and a hydrodynamically streamlined hull. After two and a half years of trials, evaluations, and the development of new fast-attack tactics, the Thresher returned to her home yard. On April 9, 1963, she got underway for a series of deep-diving trials to be held about 220 nautical miles east of Cape Cod. On board was a crew of 129 made up of sailors, officers, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard workers and contractors. Shortly after beginning her dive, something went horribly wrong and the Thresher and all 129 souls on board were lost at sea. But another example of our American character is the drive to create success from adversity and from the loss of the Thresher came two initiatives that have permitted the Submarine Service to gain unchallenged preeminence in undersea warfare. First was the implementation of the SubSafe program. This standard dictates that every submarine, every hull integrity-related system and every pressure-related part within those systems must be 100 percent certified safe for use aboard the submarine. And since that time, no submarine has been lost because of a similar casualty. Second, a recommendation by the Deep Submergence Systems Review Group, which looked into the cause of the tragedy, was that a curriculum be established to train engineers to design and develop systems specifically for use in the ocean environment--the discipline of ocean engineering. Since that time ocean engineering programs have been established in Florida, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, Hawaii and the Naval Academy. From these programs have come the engineers who have designed and developed the Los Angeles, the Ohio, the Seawolf and the Virgnia-classes of submarines. Engineers like retired Admiral Millard Firebaugh, a former ship superintendent at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, who earned a doctorate of science degree in Ocean Engineering from MIT and went on to become the program manager for the design and construction of the Seawolf. We in this nation owe a great debt to the 129 crewmen of the USS Thresher, to all who have served aboard submarines over the past 100 years and to the civilians who have accepted the risk and sacrified alongside their submarine shipmates. When I learned that there had never been a resolution passed in this body acknowledging the loss of this gallant crew and expressing our gratitude for their sacrifice, I believed that in this 100th year of the Submarine Service and the 200th year of their home yard, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, it was entirely appropriate and timely of us to do so. I therefore ask unanimous consent that an enrolled copy be transmitted to and accepted by the commanding officer of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on behalf of the families and shipmates of the crew of the USS Thresher, the crews of the Naval Submarine Service and the workers of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2000 and I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by my friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney. The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 provides permanent authorization for offices of women's health in five federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, only two women's health offices in the federal government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. Another federally-funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause among women. Today, members of Congress and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about appropriate courses of treatment for women lags far behind that for men for many diseases. For years, research into diseases that predominantly affect women, such as breast cancer, went grossly underfunded. And many women do not have access to reproductive and other vital health services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. Ten years, ago, as co- chairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (CCWI), Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act (WHEA) in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Three years later Congress enacted legislation mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43). Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health--language based on my original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 104th Congress. And yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a long way to go on women's health care issues. Last month, the GAO released a report--a ten-year update--on the status of women's research at NIH (``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research,'' published on May 2, 2000). This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993 legislation, NIH has made significant progress toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials. However, the report notes that the Institutes have made less progress in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO found that NIH researchers will include women in their trials--but then they will either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no difference was found, they will not publish the sex-based results. NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in clinical trials, but our commitment to women's health this is not about quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and Congress's directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged by federal research efforts. The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite the fact that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing the focus on women's health in offices that don't have this legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency Director. Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and they have been successful in making federal programs and policies more responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future years. Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several reasons: First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on women's health. Second, it ensures that Agencies will enact Congress's intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these commitments. By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific, legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies, and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will ensure the presence of enduring offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing needs and gaps in research policy, programs, and education and training in women's health. Improving the health of American women requires a far greater understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment and the delivery of services. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Mikulski and me in supporting this legislation, to help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that are important to my State of Maine. The first piece of legislation pertains to the Narraguagus River dredge in Milbridge and will reauthorize former Corps project areas so as to design a portion of the 11-foot channel as anchorage. The town has provided the Corps with harbor use data that indicates that the 11-foot channel need only be dredged to 9 feet. I have already requested $30,000 for FY01 Energy and Water appropriations to complete plans and specifications for a maintenance dredge of the 11-, 9- and 6-foot channel from Narraguagus Bay to the town landings and the 6-foot anchorages in Milbridge. The project serves the important commercial fishing and lobstering fleet, acquaculture operations, and fish packing facility, and a small recreational fleet. The second bill concerns the Kennebunk River in Kennebunkport that deauthorizes a small elongated section of the Federal Navigation Channel. Not only would this allow much needed moorings from a nearby marina to remain where they have been positioned, but most importantly, the deauthorization would be the last piece needed so that the important dredge project can go forward. This is a very active channel, Mr. President, and the dredge is extremely important for the safe passage not only for fishermen, but also for the tour boats, transporting up to 150 people, which go in and out of the busy harbor area throughout the spring, summer and fall months. Anyone who has been to the ``Port'' during the heavy tourist season can tell you it is a very popular attraction, particularly the tour boat trips that take tourists out past the breakwater for a view of the Maine coastline. The New England District Corps has given its approval for the deauthorization as has the town and the Joint River Commission. I look forward to the speedy passage of these two non-controversial bills separately and to support their inclusion into legislation reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for which passage is being considered in this Congress.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of 2000 and I am pleased to be joined on this legislation by my friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney. The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 provides permanent authorization for offices of women's health in five federal agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, only two women's health offices in the federal government have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office for Women's Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly understood, and women were systematically excluded from important health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined hundreds of men. Another federally-funded study examined the ability of aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause among women. Today, members of Congress and the American public understand the importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical research and health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about appropriate courses of treatment for women lags far behind that for men for many diseases. For years, research into diseases that predominantly affect women, such as breast cancer, went grossly underfunded. And many women do not have access to reproductive and other vital health services. Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's access to affordable, quality health services. Ten years, ago, as co- chairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (CCWI), Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry Waxman, called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health Equity Act (WHEA) in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical research, prevention and services. Three years later Congress enacted legislation mandating the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43). Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health--language based on my original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 104th Congress. And yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a long way to go on women's health care issues. Last month, the GAO released a report--a ten-year update--on the status of women's research at NIH (``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research,'' published on May 2, 2000). This report found that since the first GAO report and the 1993 legislation, NIH has made significant progress toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external clinical trials. However, the report notes that the Institutes have made less progress in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO found that NIH researchers will include women in their trials--but then they will either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no difference was found, they will not publish the sex-based results. NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in clinical trials, but our commitment to women's health this is not about quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and Congress's directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be shortchanged by federal research efforts. The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite the fact that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing the focus on women's health in offices that don't have this legislative mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency Director. Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and they have been successful in making federal programs and policies more responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future years. Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several reasons: First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on women's health. Second, it ensures that Agencies will enact Congress's intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be available in future years to fulfill these commitments. By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific, legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies, and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will ensure the presence of enduring offices dedicated to addressing the ongoing needs and gaps in research policy, programs, and education and training in women's health. Improving the health of American women requires a far greater understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment and the delivery of services. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Mikulski and me in supporting this legislation, to help ensure that women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical textbook.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that are important to my State of Maine. The first piece of legislation pertains to the Narraguagus River dredge in Milbridge and will reauthorize former Corps project areas so as to design a portion of the 11-foot channel as anchorage. The town has provided the Corps with harbor use data that indicates that the 11-foot channel need only be dredged to 9 feet. I have already requested $30,000 for FY01 Energy and Water appropriations to complete plans and specifications for a maintenance dredge of the 11-, 9- and 6-foot channel from Narraguagus Bay to the town landings and the 6-foot anchorages in Milbridge. The project serves the important commercial fishing and lobstering fleet, acquaculture operations, and fish packing facility, and a small recreational fleet. The second bill concerns the Kennebunk River in Kennebunkport that deauthorizes a small elongated section of the Federal Navigation Channel. Not only would this allow much needed moorings from a nearby marina to remain where they have been positioned, but most importantly, the deauthorization would be the last piece needed so that the important dredge project can go forward. This is a very active channel, Mr. President, and the dredge is extremely important for the safe passage not only for fishermen, but also for the tour boats, transporting up to 150 people, which go in and out of the busy harbor area throughout the spring, summer and fall months. Anyone who has been to the ``Port'' during the heavy tourist season can tell you it is a very popular attraction, particularly the tour boat trips that take tourists out past the breakwater for a view of the Maine coastline. The New England District Corps has given its approval for the deauthorization as has the town and the Joint River Commission. I look forward to the speedy passage of these two non-controversial bills separately and to support their inclusion into legislation reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for which passage is being considered in this Congress.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to guarantee funding for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) McKinney Act homeless assistance programs, including Shelter Plus Care and the Supportive Housing Program (SHP). The legislation I am introducing today mirrors legislation introduced earlier this year in the House by Representative LaFalce and included in the House version of the FY01 supplemental, which would renew existing Shelter Plus and SHP contracts and fund them under the budget for the HUD Section 8 housing assistance program. The renewals funded under this legislation would provide grant funding for existing programs that support assistance to some of the most vulnerable Americans--the homeless. Without the resources that this bill is designed to provide, many who receive assistance today will literally be left out in the cold. Keep in mind that these are not new programs--they are renewals. And they fund community initiatives already in place in cities and towns across the country that provide assistance to those in need. Under Shelter Plus and SHP, states are awarded grants for services such as subsidized housing for the homeless, many of whom are physically or mentally ill or disabled, or who suffer from substance abuse problems, as well as job training, shelters, health care, child care, and other services for this population. Some of the victims that are helped are children, low-income families, single mothers, and battered spouses. Many are also veterans. I have witnessed first-hand the dislocation that can be caused by non-renewal. In January of last year, HUD issued homeless grant assistance announcements to most states but denied applications submitted by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of Portland, Maine leaving the state one of only four not to receive any funds. We were alarmed to learn that this would mean that many homeless agencies and programs could lose funding altogether, and that in fact, over 70 homeless people with mental illnesses or substance abuse problems would lose housing subsidies. The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo. HUD officials ultimately restored about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, a portion of the city's request, but refused to restore any State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million for HUD, and the State had simply requested $1.2 million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs in 1999. What did they get to meet these needs--nothing. In spite of the proven track record of homeless programs in Maine, including praise by Secretary Cuomo during an August 1998 visit to Maine, HUD completely zeroed out funding for Maine. Not a penny for these disadvantaged children, battered women, single mothers, disabled individuals, and veterans who sacrificed to preserve the freedoms we cherish. This could happen anywhere, but it shouldn't. This is why I have also cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to guarantee minimum funding for every state and assure a fairer, more equitable allocation of funding in the future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding to each state under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Without this assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for states to provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the victims of homelessness. In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young people are between 5-12 with the average age being 13. It is vitally important that changes be made to our homeless policy to ensure that no state falls through the cracks in the future. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for the legislation I am proposing today. I hope this legislation will contribute to the dialogue under way as to how best to enhance federal homeless assistance initiatives, so that programs around the country can continue to provide vital services to the less fortunate among us. Lastly, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to Senator Bond, who chairs the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee for his leadership and his support when HUD zeroed out funding for Maine's homeless programs. I am very grateful for his vision and leadership on issues of importance to homeless advocates nationwide. To that end, I am pleased that the Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Department appropriations report contains language expressing concern about the HUD policies that resulted in a number of local homeless assistance initiatives going unfunded in recent years, and urging HUD to ensure that expiring rental contracts are renewed. HUD is also directed to submit a report to Congress explaining why projects with expiring grants were rejected during the 1999 round. I look forward to working with the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee as well as the Banking Committee as this year's legislative and appropriations process continues, and as we endeavor to craft a long-term solution to the homeless problem that is fiscally and socially responsible and improves the effectiveness of federal homeless programs for the future. Once again, I applaud the leadership of the Senate VA-HUD and Banking panels on this important issue, and I am confident in their commitment to further improvements in the program.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a resolution honoring the 19 Marines who died on April 8, 2000 during a training mission in Marana, AZ, and extending the condolences of the Senate to their families and the Marine Corps. I thank Senators Warner and Levin, and the 13 other Senators--from both sides of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee--for joining me in bipartisan support of this resolution. At approximately 8 p.m. on Saturday, April 8, while conducting training as part of the weapons and tactics instructor course, during an operational evaluation of the MV-22 Osprey, the aircraft unexpectedly plunged to the ground during landing, killing all 19 marines on board. Their deaths stunned the Nation. Among those who died were fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, grandsons, nephews, uncles, and friends. These dedicated men were from Texas, Maryland, Oklahoma, California, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Arizona, Washington, Virginia, and Florida but were bound together in the brotherhood of arms known as the United States Marine Corps. Since it was first established through a resolution by the Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, the United States Marine Corps has been defined by the fearless and indomitable spirit of those who have served. Sharing an enviable ``esprit de corps,'' marines have used the Marine Corps emblem of the eagle, globe, and anchor to transcend race, ethnicity, gender, geographic and economic background. Their tenacity, uncompromising will, and outspoken pride in being a marine have endeared them to the nation, and we, as a nation, grieve their loss. Nowhere is this loss felt more deeply than by the families of these men. I thank them for their unrelenting support and sacrifice that they have made to their marine, to the Marine Corps, and to their Nation, and offer my sympathy for their loss. I also recognize the Marine Corps family--specifically the 3d Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, the Marine Helicopter Squadron-1, and the Marine Wing Communications Squadron 38, Marine Air Control Group 38--who served side by side with these marines and will continue to carry out the mission without them. This tragic accident is a brutal reminder that there is no such thing as ``routine'' training for our men and women in the military. Every day, all around the world our armed forces risk their lives, in peace and in combat, to support and defend our great Nation, and they deserve our thanks and admiration. Mr. President, this resolution recognizes the sacrifices of these magnificent 19 marines and their families who embody the Marine Corps credo ``Semper Fidelis'' always faithful. It is the opportunity for the Senate to publically thank their families and the Marine Corps for their dedication, loyalty, and sacrifice to our Nation, and to extend our condolences on this loss.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to guarantee funding for Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) McKinney Act homeless assistance programs, including Shelter Plus Care and the Supportive Housing Program (SHP). The legislation I am introducing today mirrors legislation introduced earlier this year in the House by Representative LaFalce and included in the House version of the FY01 supplemental, which would renew existing Shelter Plus and SHP contracts and fund them under the budget for the HUD Section 8 housing assistance program. The renewals funded under this legislation would provide grant funding for existing programs that support assistance to some of the most vulnerable Americans--the homeless. Without the resources that this bill is designed to provide, many who receive assistance today will literally be left out in the cold. Keep in mind that these are not new programs--they are renewals. And they fund community initiatives already in place in cities and towns across the country that provide assistance to those in need. Under Shelter Plus and SHP, states are awarded grants for services such as subsidized housing for the homeless, many of whom are physically or mentally ill or disabled, or who suffer from substance abuse problems, as well as job training, shelters, health care, child care, and other services for this population. Some of the victims that are helped are children, low-income families, single mothers, and battered spouses. Many are also veterans. I have witnessed first-hand the dislocation that can be caused by non-renewal. In January of last year, HUD issued homeless grant assistance announcements to most states but denied applications submitted by the Maine State Housing Authority and by the city of Portland, Maine leaving the state one of only four not to receive any funds. We were alarmed to learn that this would mean that many homeless agencies and programs could lose funding altogether, and that in fact, over 70 homeless people with mental illnesses or substance abuse problems would lose housing subsidies. The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo. HUD officials ultimately restored about $1 million in funding to the city of Portland, a portion of the city's request, but refused to restore any State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million for HUD, and the State had simply requested $1.2 million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs in 1999. What did they get to meet these needs--nothing. In spite of the proven track record of homeless programs in Maine, including praise by Secretary Cuomo during an August 1998 visit to Maine, HUD completely zeroed out funding for Maine. Not a penny for these disadvantaged children, battered women, single mothers, disabled individuals, and veterans who sacrificed to preserve the freedoms we cherish. This could happen anywhere, but it shouldn't. This is why I have also cosponsored legislation authored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to guarantee minimum funding for every state and assure a fairer, more equitable allocation of funding in the future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 percent of funding to each state under title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Without this assistance, basic subsidized housing and shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for states to provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services to the victims of homelessness. In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young people are between 5-12 with the average age being 13. It is vitally important that changes be made to our homeless policy to ensure that no state falls through the cracks in the future. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for the legislation I am proposing today. I hope this legislation will contribute to the dialogue under way as to how best to enhance federal homeless assistance initiatives, so that programs around the country can continue to provide vital services to the less fortunate among us. Lastly, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to Senator Bond, who chairs the Senate VA-HUD Subcommittee for his leadership and his support when HUD zeroed out funding for Maine's homeless programs. I am very grateful for his vision and leadership on issues of importance to homeless advocates nationwide. To that end, I am pleased that the Senate version of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Department appropriations report contains language expressing concern about the HUD policies that resulted in a number of local homeless assistance initiatives going unfunded in recent years, and urging HUD to ensure that expiring rental contracts are renewed. HUD is also directed to submit a report to Congress explaining why projects with expiring grants were rejected during the 1999 round. I look forward to working with the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee as well as the Banking Committee as this year's legislative and appropriations process continues, and as we endeavor to craft a long-term solution to the homeless problem that is fiscally and socially responsible and improves the effectiveness of federal homeless programs for the future. Once again, I applaud the leadership of the Senate VA-HUD and Banking panels on this important issue, and I am confident in their commitment to further improvements in the program.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Critical Access Hospital Enhancement Act of 2000. This bill provides some much-needed program flexibility and refinements to the Medicare Critical Access Hospital Program. Congress created the Critical Access Hospital Program three years ago when we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33). Under current law, a Critical Access Hospital must be located at a distance of over 35 miles from the nearest hospital; have emergency room and inpatient services provided by physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners; have fifteen or fewer inpatient beds; and inpatient stays must be limited to an average of 96 hours (four days). The Critical Access Hospital program enables eligible rural hospitals to receive higher reimbursement rates for acute medical care. Through special allowances for staffing and reimbursements, designation as a Critical Access Hospital means that a community may be able to maintain local health care access which would otherwise be lost. Many rural patients are Medicare and Medicaid participants and reduced reimbursements hit hospitals and medical centers hard: for example, two-thirds of the patients at Blue Hill Memorial Hospital in my home state of Maine are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. Designation as a Critical Access Hospital is especially important to these small, rural hospitals because it provides higher reimbursement rates To date, there are 165 hospitals across the country that have been designated as Critical Access Hospitals, and three in Maine: Blue Hill Memorial in Blue Hill, St. Andrews Hospital in Boothbay Harbor, and C.A. Dean Memorial Hospital in Greenville. Without the Critical Access Hospital program many small, rural hospitals--many of which are often the only point of care for miles--will be lost. My bill seeks to strengthen this program; it is my hope that with passage of the legislation I introduce today, more of our nation's small, rural hospitals will be able to participate in this valuable program. This bill will bring increased flexibility and programmatic refinements to the Critical Access Hospital Program through the restoration of bad debt payments, extending cost-based reimbursement to ambulance and home health services associated with Critical Access Hospitals, and modifying the provisions related to swing bed and laboratory services. In addition, I propose including a seasonality adjustment for hospitals that are based in communities that experience large seasonal population fluctuations. Rural residents are often poorer and more likely to lack private health insurance when compared with their urban neighbors. As a result, rural hospitals disproportionately incur bad debt expenses. The BBA reduced bad debt payments for hospitals and the Health Care Financing Administration has interpreted this provision to apply to Critical Access Hospitals. My bill restores bad debt payments as a way to improve participation rates in the Critical Access Hospital program. Emergency medical care is a crucial component in the Critical Access Hospital health care delivery system. Congress clearly stated that all outpatient departmental services furnished by Critical Access Hospitals should be reimbursed on the basis of reasonable costs, but HCFA has carved out ambulance services. My bill extends cost-based reimbursement to ambulance services associated with Critical Access Hospitals as it follows Congress's original legislative intent. Critical Access Hospitals are often the sole sponsor of home health services in remote areas. If a Critical Access Hospital is the only home health provider in a rural community, then it would be useful to reimburse those services on the basis of reasonable costs. This bill will extend cost-based reimbursement to home health services associated with Critical Access Hospitals and will help maintain access to post- acute medical care for Medicare beneficiaries. Critical Access Hospitals are currently required to comply with extensive minimum data set standards under the skilled nursing facility (SNF) prospective payment system (PPS). This bill will provide cost based reimbursement to swing bed services furnished by Critical Access Hospitals to help alleviate some of the administrative expenses associated with SNF PPS. Laboratory services furnished by Critical Access Hospitals have historically been reimbursed on the basis of reasonable costs. In an attempt to clarify the statute and eliminate the collection of beneficiary coinsurance, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (P.L. 106- 113) that we passed last November inadvertently referenced the fee schedule. Consequently, HCFA has interpreted the provision to mean laboratory services now will be reimbursed at the fee schedule rate. Correcting this provision is critical to ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access to important laboratory tests, and my bill does just that. Seasonal fluctuations can occur in places likes coastal Maine where tourism swells the population in an area or in a small town near a ski resort. This seasonal population increase makes many otherwise tiny hospitals ineligible for the Critical Access Hospital Program. We must ensure that hospitals are available year round for a community's permanent population. It seems to me that if a hospital generally serves a community with a population of 2,000 but is seasonally faced with substantially much larger population, it should not de facto be made ineligible for the benefits of the Critical Access Hospital Program. The final provision in The Critical Access Hospital Enhancement Act will allow a state flexibility in designating a hospital with more than 15 beds as a Critical Access Hospital if those additional beds are used only for seasonal fluctuations in admissions, and if the average annual occupancy is not more than 15. Mr. President, small hospitals across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future, and we must lend additional support to our rural health care providers. Refining the Critical Access Hospital program will ensure that the Critical Access Hospital designation is flexible enough for most rural areas. Expanding the Critical Access Hospital Program is critical to these small hospitals and the communities they serve.